Aerial Recon on the Western Front

[Tante Ju]

There is a lot of truth is what you say but at the end of the day the 109 couldn't carry the same range of cameras as the PR spits, they didn't have the range and didn't have the performance to avoid interception. Most importantly the Luftwaffe didn't have any alternatives.

We will have to see the particulars. What would be the typical range of cameras PR Spits would carry, their type and details, what was their speed capabilities, especially sustainable cruise speeds and mission profiles, how did it happen they were still intercepted (IIRC the fitst victim of the 109G was a PR Spit) and what was their range under that mission profile? How many produced and how many missions flown?

In the already mentioned excellent Aufklaerers volume it is mentioned that due to lack of proper cameras and difficulties of importing them from the US the British were forced to scavenge the Zeiss objectives from a downed Ju 88 recon plane in order to boost up their unsuitable lenses (possibly lacking detail?). This tends to raise some doubts if the British ever possessed proper quality cameras during the war.

 

[Balljoint]

As late as 1994 the RAF was still using wet-film photo recce and we were still analysing negatives on light tables using stereoscopes - not the best in the world but it worked and delivered results sufficient for the operation at that time.

As you say the Brits used stereo viewing that required two separate viewpoints for each image. The 3-D images were instrumental in finding and interpreting the initially overlooked V-1 and V-2 weapons and sites. Recently there was a PBS program that did a good job of reviewing this and the resulting, as I recall, Operation Crossbow

 

[Juha]

Hello Tante Ju
Straight from Wiki, the most numerous PR Spit
The Mk XI was the first PR variant to have the option of using two vertically mounted F52 cameras with 36-inch-focal-length lens in the fuselage behind the cockpit.[48] Several other configurations could be fitted, depending on mission requirements; the "X Type" installation, for example had two vertically mounted F24s with 14-inch lens and an oblique F24 with an 8-inch lens mounted above and facing to port.[49] PR Mk XIs used for tactical reconnaissance had an additional, vertically oriented camera in a fairing under each wing.[48]

Physically the Mk XIs had a deeper nose fairing to accommodate a larger 14.5 gal oil tank and used the unarmoured, wrap-around PRU windscreen. "Booster" pumps for the wing tanks were fitted and covered by "teardrop" shaped fairings under the wings. Retractable tailwheels were fitted as standard and the majority of the Mk XIs built had the later large-area "pointed" rudder. 260 Mk XIs were powered by Merlin 61, 63 or 63A engines, while the remaining 211 used the high-altitude Merlin 70. All of the Merlin 70 and 198 of the Merlin 60 series aircraft were fitted with the Vokes Aero-Vee dust filter in the extended, streamlined carburettor air intake under the nose.[48] All Merlin 60 powered aircraft featured the fuel cooler in the port leading edge wing root. The radio installation was either the VHF TR.1133 or TR.1143 fitted with the "Rebecca" beam approach equipment.[48]

Additional "slipper" drop tanks could be fitted under the centre-section; in common with the Mk IX these could be 30, 45 or 90 gal capacity and, for the Mk XI, a tank of 170 gal capacity was also available.[38]

Spitfire PR Mk XIs were capable of a top speed of 417 mph (671 km/h) at 24,000 ft (7,300 m) and could cruise at 395 mph (636 km/h) at 32,000 ft (9,800 m). Normally Spitfire XIs cruised between these altitudes although, in an emergency, the aircraft could climb to 44,000 ft (13,000 m) However, pilots could not withstand such altitudes for long in a non-pressurised cockpit without suffering from serious physiological effects.[46]

At first, production of the PR Mk XI was delayed because development of the Mk VII and VIII series was delayed. As a result it was decided to base the Merlin 60 powered PR aircraft on the MK IX airframe.[45] Production was further threatened because of a dispute over RAF PR doctrine: in early 1943, because the new PR Spitfire was delayed, the Air Ministry proposed that all PR units be converted to de Havilland Mosquitoes. After further analysis the Air Staff agreed that Mosquitoes could perform 90% of PR missions so the Spitfire production for only 10% of PR units was mooted. Air Vice Marshal John Slessor, head of Coastal Command pointed out that the Spitfire was smaller than the Mosquito, used half the number of Merlin engines and was faster, more manoeuvrable and quieter and, therefore production should be increased, not reduced. As a result the Air Staff decided that PR Mk XI production should be accelerated at the cost of the fighters.[48]

The first Mk XIs were built in November 1942: from April 1944 production ran concurrently with the PR Mk XIX before ending in December 1944, when they were phased out in favour of the Mk XIX. In total 471 Mk XI were built by Supermarine.[50]

In the already mentioned excellent Aufklaerers volume it is mentioned that due to lack of proper cameras and difficulties of importing them from the US the British were forced to scavenge the Zeiss objectives from a downed Ju 88 recon plane in order to boost up their unsuitable lenses (possibly lacking detail?). This tends to raise some doubts if the British ever possessed proper quality cameras during the war.

Just look from internet for wartime British recon photos and see yourself the quality. For ex Tirpitz photos and then try to found out German high altitude photos on KGV BBs and compare.

 

[buffnut453]

Another recon technique was the use of bombers hauling somewhat heavy but powerful flash illumination equipment at night.

Those were for post-strike analysis to determine whether the bombs were actually hitting the designated target area.

 

[nuuumannn]

This tends to raise some doubts if the British ever possessed proper quality cameras during the war.

Actually, British cameras were very efficient. The F24, which was the standard RAF recon camera was in service until the 1960s as was its high altitude derivative the F52.

As for disposition of PR aircraft, by September 1941 No.1 PRU had 37 Spitfires, 2 Mosquitoes and 2 Martin Marylands. In October 1942 No.1 PRU was disbanded and the different flights became squadrons; Mossie PR.IVs went into 540 Sqn and the Spit PR.IV Flights became 542 and 543 Sqns, with 140 Sqn with Spit PR.IVs doing army co-operation sorties. Indeed the PR.IV was no match for a Bf 109F or G, being based on Spit Mk.Is and Vs. A total of 229 Spit PR.IVs were built. The introduction of the PR.XI, which was based on the Spit IX went some way to redress inequality between German fighters and the recon aircraft however; the Mk.XI was fitted with the two-speed two-stage 60 Series Merlin; 471 of these were built. With the Griffon engined Spit XIV came the PR.XIX, to which in terms of PR aircraft performance, the Germans had no equal (except for jets of course); 20 pre-production aircraft were followed by 205 production PR.XIXs. These were all specialised unarmed strategic recon aircraft; not just standard Spitfires fitted with cameras.

These numbers represent the principal production PR Spitfires and do not include specialised variants, such as the Spit PR.X, which was a Spit IX with a pressurised cabin; 16 of these were built. Nor do they include tac recon Spitfire FR variants; fighter recon variants of standard models, such as the FR.XIV, of which 430 were built.

The de Havilland Mosquito was another aircraft that specialised recon variants were built from the outset and was used extensively by the PRUs for strategic recon; the first Mosquitoes to enter service were PR variants in mid 1941. The first was the PR.I, which went into service in small numbers, followed by the PR.IV, which was the PR variants of the B.IV, ther first Mossie bomber; 32 were converted from B.IVs. The PR.IX followed from this, 90 of these were built, followed by the PR.XVI, the first pressurised variant of which 432 were built. There was also the post war PR.34.

Within the first few months of ops with the Mossie, the Admiralty ws the principal client of the Mossie squadrons; all the main German ports were photographed in Germany, Norway, France and Poland. These aircraft went as far as North Africa and the Middle East. The Spitfires carried out sorties closer to home for the Admiralty, Scientific Intelligence and also the USAAF once they arrived on the scene. Like I said in an earlier post, the V weapons and German jets were discovered years befor they entered service by the PR aircraft; their efforts were crucial in planning heavy bomber raids, such as that against Peenemunde as well as against the Tirpitz and the Bismarck.

In light of the German efforts, I still maintain that the British strategic recon PRUs carried out a far greater number of sorties than Rowehl's unit (this doesn't include in-theatre battlefield recon) and the Brits were not slow learners; despite being behind in terms of organisational structure and aircraft at the beginning of the war, they did not suffer the organisational turmoil the Germans did and operated with far greater flexibility than their German counterparts. When comparing the resultant effort in terms of analysing intel collected, the frequency and kinds of sorties flown etc the British PRUs come out ahead. Like I said earlier, the Germans had very little up-to-date images of within the UK at all during the war; those that they did get were for too few in number to be of real benefit. Despite German superiority to begin with, the tables turned very quickly.

 

[nuuumannn]

Another recon technique was the use of bombers hauling somewhat heavy but powerful flash illumination equipment at night.

British bombers were fitted with their own cameras to carry this out whilst on the raid. Shots of H2S screens were also used for this kind of intel as well. Special cameras with mountings to fix them to the H2S unit in the aircraft were used.

 

[Aozora]

We will have to see the particulars. What would be the typical range of cameras PR Spits would carry, their type and details, what was their speed capabilities, especially sustainable cruise speeds and mission profiles, how did it happen they were still intercepted (IIRC the fitst victim of the 109G was a PR Spit) and what was their range under that mission profile? How many produced and how many missions flown?

In the already mentioned excellent Aufklaerers volume it is mentioned that due to lack of proper cameras and difficulties of importing them from the US the British were forced to scavenge the Zeiss objectives from a downed Ju 88 recon plane in order to boost up their unsuitable lenses (possibly lacking detail?). This tends to raise some doubts if the British ever possessed proper quality cameras during the war.

Low altitude oblique photo of Wurzburg at Bruneval taken by Tony Hill December 1941

Low altitude oblique photo of Tirpitz
All sizes | Tirpitz ' caught on film ' - a remarkable low-level oblique photographic-reconnaissance photograph taken over the German battleship TIRPITZ moored in Aasfjord, Norway, by a Supermarine Spitfire of No. 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. |

Oblique photo of Tirpitz from further away

Photo of Mohne Dam taken by Spitfire PR Mk IX:

plus a larger image:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/4C30599C_1143_EC82_2EB81706BE1EF2B1.jpg

PR Photo of Berlin Olympic Stadium

And Templehof Airport

All done with "proper quality British cameras".

As it is I would like to see the evidence for the Aufklaerers claim about the lack of proper cameras, including the source of the information quoted in the book. There were a couple of instances where the British salvaged and used Luftwaffe camera equipment but it was a far from general practice. The supposed lack of suitable British cameras didn't seem to prevent them from regularly photographing targets deep inside German territory at all times, whereas by 1944 the Germans couldn't penetrate British airspace with any degree of comfort until the advent of the Arado 234.

 

[mhuxt]

View attachment Journal%2010%20-%20Seminar%20-%20Photo-Recce%20in%20WWII.pdf

View attachment PR spits.zip

This link

Royal Air Force Recce Units

says one of the Spit recce squads alone flew 2458 sorties, after being formed from PRU flights in mid-October '42.

 

[buffnut453]

We will have to see the particulars. What would be the typical range of cameras PR Spits would carry, their type and details, what was their speed capabilities, especially sustainable cruise speeds and mission profiles, how did it happen they were still intercepted (IIRC the fitst victim of the 109G was a PR Spit) and what was their range under that mission profile? How many produced and how many missions flown?

I don't have production numbers or mission specifics but here are some performance figures for the earliest PR Spit variants:


Spitfire PR MkIC - 2 x F24 cameras with 8in lenses mounted obliquely (Wing-Mount)
Speed: 391mph
Range: 900 miles
Alt: Low-level


Spitfire PR MkID - 2 x F24/2 x F8 cameras with 14in or 20in lenses in Split-Vertical mount
Speed: 372mph
Range: 1,460 miles
Alt: 38,000ft

Spitfire PR MkIG - 3 x F24 cameras with 14in or 5in lenses Vertical-mount lenses, plus a 14in Oblique-mount lens (also carried 4x machine guns for self-protection)
Speed: 369mph
Range: 710 miles
Alt: Low-level

 

[Juha]

Hello
info on the number of PR sorties flown, unfortunately not divided between Spits and Mossies. Source the same RAF Narrative the title page of which I posted earlier.

 

[stona]

About 120 Typhoons were converted for reconnaissance. Cameras were fitted in the space in the port wing previously occupied by a fuel tank and the inboard camera. I comprised a pair of 5", split oblique, high speed cameras angle downwards and a long focus, high speed camera laid laterally, facing the beam and angled down at twenty degrees.

These aircraft started operating with No. 268 Squadron over the Normandy battlefields. They were not part of the 2nd TAF but reported to Group Headquarters. Their operations were carried ot between zero and five thousand feet.
The Typhoon was preferred to the Mustangs also operated by the squadron because it was faster and could more easily out run any Luftwaffe fighter opposition. It was also much stronger and could sustain significant flak damage, a serious consideration when operating at low altitude.
This 2nd TAF Typhoon (not a PR version) survived some serious damage.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

We will have to see the particulars. What would be the typical range of cameras PR Spits would carry, their type and details, what was their speed capabilities, especially sustainable cruise speeds and mission profiles, how did it happen they were still intercepted (IIRC the fitst victim of the 109G was a PR Spit) and what was their range under that mission profile? How many produced and how many missions flown?.

I cannot add much to the earlier replies on the above but the PR IV entered service in Oct 1940, had a range of 2,000 miles and its first missons were over Stettin in the Baltic.
The cameras carried were :-
W: Two F.8 with 20in focal length
X: One F.24 with 14in focal length
Y: One F.52 with 36in focal length
S: Two F.24 with 14in focal length

The PR XI was the next major version the performance has been outlined but cameras common carried included two F.52 cameras with a 36in focal length, two F.8s (20in), one F.52 (20in) and two F.24 (14in) combined with one F.24 (14in or 8in) in an oblique position. Some also carried a 5 inch F.24 just behind the wheel well for low to medium level tactical reconnaissance.

Its worth noting that the RAF PR missons were daylight missions often many hundreds of miles behind the front lines.

As for performance they seem to be considerably better than the 109 PR versions which would have been at grave risk over the UK. I am not able to check my papers at the moment, but from memory Luftwaffe PR mission more or less ceased from 1942 apart from short range dashes over the Channel and occaisional very high altitude missions.

In the already mentioned excellent Aufklaerers volume it is mentioned that due to lack of proper cameras and difficulties of importing them from the US the British were forced to scavenge the Zeiss objectives from a downed Ju 88 recon plane in order to boost up their unsuitable lenses (possibly lacking detail?). This tends to raise some doubts if the British ever possessed proper quality cameras during the war.

I think to phrase 'ever had' is over cooking it a bit. Clearly the RAF lacked something at the time but equally there is no doubt that the resultant cameras were used for many years after the war so quality was not in doubt.

Its also worth remembering that the USAAF when they arrived quickly asked for PR SPits as the F5 was taking heavy losses. They used to the end of the war.

 

[Shortround6]

The war lasted 5 1/2 years, to claim that the use of a few salavaged lenes at one point during that time is an indicator of the quality of the British lenes for the entire war seems to be stretching things quite a bit.

I am not sure about the difficulties in importing US cameras/optical goods? surely if they can import aircraft engines, complete aircraft, and 30 ton tanks, getting cameras and optical goods is not a physical problem?

Optical goods can be bare (un-mounted) lenses. The British and American optical industry may not have been the equal of the German one in terms of production numbers AND quality ( at least in the first few years) for thousands (or tens of thousands) of camera lens and telescopes but teh production of recon cameras in the hundreds may have been quite doable. Such manufacture being much closer to hand made.

For an interesting story on US optics (even if not recon cameras) see:

http://www.europa.com/~telscope/rfprmgng-pa.txt

 

[stona]

The war lasted 5 1/2 years, to claim that the use of a few salavaged lenes at one point during that time is an indicator of the quality of the British lenes for the entire war seems to be stretching things quite a bit.

Particularly since the Williamson cameras that were used throughout WW2 and for a considerable time afterwards were already nearly twenty years old in 1939!
Cheers
Steve

 

[Tante Ju]

The following excerpt from the already referenced Aufklaerer Vol I. book gives some interesting information of the comparitve quality of British PR camera sets. Apparantly, British cameras, perhaps limited by their small print format of only 5" did not give satisfactory resolution. Captured German sets were highly seeked and were gave about 1/3 better resolution (1:13000 vs 1:18000).

It should be interesting that the in the link mentioned by Azora it is stated that the LW in contrast was using large format films with better resolution (in addtion to arguably finer quality Zeiss lenses). This would explain why German sets had little trouble with resolution - working with a much larger format will always yield better resolution, which is important when the shots are taken from far away, from high altitude.

It also explain why Germans sets were regarded so highly sought after, certainly until 1941.

By far the most widely used reconnaissance camera operated by the Luftwaffe was the Rb 30 series. This camera was first introduced in 1938 It was a large format camera designed mainly for task of carrying out photo-mapping work. At the beginning of the World War 2, the Rb 20/30 was in general use throughout the Luftwaffe, however, as Allied aircraft slowly forced the Luftwaffe to fly at greater higher heights, the focal length of the lenses had to increased and to this end, the Rb 75/30 became more widely used. These camera were generally mounted mostly in the vertical position, as a single camera or set up as a split pair. It was also known that they were occasions used in the oblique position.

The camera was fitted with an iris shutter within the lens and when fitted with a full magazine of film (210ft) and all attachments, its approximately weight was 160lb. Using a large film format, 32cm wide perforated film, this would give a frame size of nearly one foot square. During the exposing of the imagery, the film itself was held flat within the camera by means of "dynamic" air pressure that was supplied by the camera motor drive.


Obviously you cannot expect the if you have to work with compact cameras using 5"x5" or at best 7"x7" format films.

 

[Juha]

Now it happened to be that F8 and F52 used 8.25"x7" picture size, F24 5"x5", source Edward Leaf: Above All Unseen. The Royal Air Force's Photographic Reconnaissance Units 1939-1945 (1997). The best camera FiAF had was a pre-war Fairchild, it was better than war-time Fairchild obtainend or German Rb 30 series cameras obtained from Germany. And thanks for the scan.

Juha

 

[Tante Ju]

Now it happened to be that F8 and F52 used 8.25"x7" picture size, F24 5"x5", source Edward Leaf: Above All Unseen. The Royal Air Force's Photographic Reconnaissance Units 1939-1945 (1997).

So it is confirmed RAF used smaller format film. Thank you for information, this explains differences found in resolution of shots.

 

[Juha]

Hello Tante Ju
if you have seen British verticals of Mistels at Prague/Ruzyne e.g. in Price's The Last Year of the Luftwaffe, of a V1 at Peenemünde or Tirpitz in Norway, Graf Zeppelin in Stettin or compared a RAF photo of Schanforst and Gneisenau in Brest on 28 May 41 to a LW photo of Alexandria on 24 April 1941 you'd see that British cameras produced sharp enough high altitude vertical photos.

Juha

 

[Aozora]

So it is confirmed RAF used smaller format film. Thank you for information, this explains differences found in resolution of shots.

Thanks for the scan of the page; however to use one incident in early 1940 to make out that the British were constantly scrambling for photographic equipment is a biiig stretch. Have also yet to see any convincing evidence that the British camera equipment was somehow inadequate for the use that was made of it. While the German equipment was undoubtably larger format and the Zeiss lens were justifiably regarded as some of the best in the world, the German RB series cameras were far heavier and bulkier, weighing 160 lbs, such that they had trouble fitting them into smaller aircraft. In fact it would seem that Germany needed to develop a, smaller, lighter series of cameras based on what they had found in Allied aircraft, mostly using a 7 in by 7 in format.

Luftwaffe Cameras

As the war continued the Luftwaffe looked at developing smaller and lighter reconnaissance cameras, mostly on the lines of the USAAF and the RAF, these cameras evolved from the hand-held versions of the pre-war systems. Captured RAF cameras may have also helped in some way towards the development. The Luftwaffe looked at a number of smaller size film formats for these camera, 25cm (10 inches), 7.5cm (3 inches) and the most generally used 18cm (7 inches). These cameras were primarily used in aircraft that could not carry the bulky Rb 30 series. With the 7x9cm format two focal length lenses were used, the 32cm and the 12.5cm, both these cameras used a focal plane shutter suggesting that they may have been a copy of the RAF F.24 or the USAAF K-24.

RB 50/30, British F24 w/14" lens, RB 20/30, British F.24 w/3.25" lens

So there were trade-offs for that larger format. Does the Aufklaerers book mention this?

And, as has already been mentioned, the German intelligence services didn't make the best use of what they had. For example, while the Allies could photograph Berlin almost continuously, by late 1943 German reconnaissance aircraft had great difficulty penetrating as far as London and, for example, could not help the Germans work out the mean strike area of the V-1s.

 

[Tante Ju]

Thanks for the scan of the page; however to use one incident in early 1940 to make out that the British were constantly scrambling for photographic equipment is a biiig stretch. Have also yet to see any convincing evidence that the British camera equipment was somehow inadequate for the use that was made of it.

Well there was not one known incident but four PR Spitfire are listed which are known (there may be others). How many intact German camera sets were captured by the British - four perhaps? It seems there has been quite a rush.

While the German equipment was undoubtably larger format and the Zeiss lens were justifiably regarded as some of the best in the world, the German RB series cameras were far heavier and bulkier, weighing 160 lbs, such that they had trouble fitting them into smaller aircraft. In fact it would seem that Germany needed to develop a, smaller, lighter series of cameras based on what they had found in Allied aircraft, mostly using a 7 in by 7 in format.

Which smaller aircraft did you have in mind having trouble fitting them?

The "far heavier and bulkier" (well its sounds like a bit of a marketing slogan here - better cameras are almost always heavier and bulkier) RB x/30 series cameras were the standard fit of the Bf 109 (the big one on the left of your picture) and indeed other LW recce planes.

I think the slogan was that the Bf 109 was sooooo small it was incapable mounting them...

They did indeed develop some smaller format cameras, mostly for low altitude work I believe. They were called Rb 32 / 7 x 9 and Rb 12,5 / 7 x 9. Different task may require different equipment. The smaller they were used in pairs in tactical fighter recons (Fw 190 and Bf 109, ie. G-8, G-10/R2), where, usually operating at low altitude, resolution was probably not a problem.

And, as has already been mentioned, the German intelligence services didn't make the best use of what they had.

I think you are mixing up cause and effect. German recon flights over England dwindled after 1941 and there was two very simple answer for that. First, they already photographed England before the war in clandestine actions and during the intense bombing operations of 1940. I am pretty sure London, Birmingham or Liverpool did not swap places by 1943. Secondly, the large scale German bomber operations after were concentrating in the MTO and in Russia - and where the bomber bombs, it needs target photo and photos showing the effect the bombing. Where it does not bomb it does not need that, ie. over England, where post-1941 the bombing actions were largely limited to brief outbursts of retaliatory raids for BC attacks on Germany. Now, Bomber Command did bomb Germany almost continously, so no big surprise there that it needed constant flight for target aquisition and damage assessment.

German intelligence services did make the best use of what they had, where they needed: the Eastern Front. Juha just posted an old paper showing about 12 000 RAF PRU recon sorties during the entire war. And I just found a picture of a single Ju 88D celebrating its 500th (!!) recon sortie, and another picture of a Fw 189 squadron celebrating its 1000th sortie. This should help put things in context on the scale of recon flights. As nuumann noted, the Germans had an extensive array of recon planes and made great use of them.

For example, while the Allies could photograph Berlin almost continuously, by late 1943 German reconnaissance aircraft had great difficulty penetrating as far as London and, for example, could not help the Germans work out the mean strike area of the V-1s.

Yes I would say above is example of not seeing the forest from a tree.. I am pretty sure London was at the same place in 1940 through 1944, of which the LW had plenty of photograph. Even a tourist map would do. What they did have trouble was penetrating the airspace by the summer of 1944 - and this had some rather unrelated reasons to recce aircraft availability or performance as you may well know.

Speaking of performance, there is one more interesting question. What was supposed to intercept these single engined LW PR fighter-recces over British Isles? Mark VI Spitfires? I skimmed over one of these G-4/R3 "super recce" 109s losses, and they lost like - three of them in the whole of 1943?