How did they know what it was called?

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

YakMan

YakMan

Airman
50
23
Jul 14, 2011
Northamptonshire
Hi chaps, one thing that has always made me wonder is how did opposing sides know what the other side's vehicles and aircraft were called? It can't surely have been done all by spies and interrogations can it? I don't think there is a data plate inside a P-38 that says Lightning or inside a Lancaster saying that (Idon't even know if the Lanc had a factory designation - it must have). Also they would warn aircrews about a new version of say, the Fw-190 been seen, I mean, how on earth did they know it was a new version? In combat all you get is a fleeting veiw as (hopefully) the enemy flashes past, hardly enough time so see bulges the D model didn't have or different shape fins etcetera. It just seems to me each side knew exactly what the other was doing?? Same with tanks and other AFV's, a new one appears, "Oh yes, thats the 'whatever' MkV with the slightly different shaped exhaust - easy to spot! Put me right someone!
 
YakMan said:
Hi chaps, one thing that has always made me wonder is how did opposing sides know what the other side's vehicles and aircraft were called? It can't surely have been done all by spies and interrogations can it? I don't think there is a data plate inside a P-38 that says Lightning or inside a Lancaster saying that (Idon't even know if the Lanc had a factory designation - it must have). Also they would warn aircrews about a new version of say, the Fw-190 been seen, I mean, how on earth did they know it was a new version? In combat all you get is a fleeting veiw as (hopefully) the enemy flashes past, hardly enough time so see bulges the D model didn't have or different shape fins etcetera. It just seems to me each side knew exactly what the other was doing?? Same with tanks and other AFV's, a new one appears, "Oh yes, thats the 'whatever' MkV with the slightly different shaped exhaust - easy to spot! Put me right someone!
Click to expand...
Jane's. Military attaches. Advertisements. Press releases, both manufacturer and government.

This is also one of the jobs of military intelligence services.
 
YakMan said:
Hi chaps, one thing that has always made me wonder is how did opposing sides know what the other side's vehicles and aircraft were called? It can't surely have been done all by spies and interrogations can it? I don't think there is a data plate inside a P-38 that says Lightning or inside a Lancaster saying that (Idon't even know if the Lanc had a factory designation - it must have). Also they would warn aircrews about a new version of say, the Fw-190 been seen, I mean, how on earth did they know it was a new version? In combat all you get is a fleeting veiw as (hopefully) the enemy flashes past, hardly enough time so see bulges the D model didn't have or different shape fins etcetera. It just seems to me each side knew exactly what the other was doing?? Same with tanks and other AFV's, a new one appears, "Oh yes, thats the 'whatever' MkV with the slightly different shaped exhaust - easy to spot! Put me right someone!
Click to expand...
I myself have been wanting to ask that.
 
With some it was intelligence from trusted pilots. The LW noticed a change in performance with the Mk II Spitfire in the BoB even though it is identical to a Mk 1. Goering mentioned that the Mosquitos performance had been improved in one of his rants. Planes were captured and examined. However misidentification was common. The Typhoon was routinely mistaken for FW 190s and so had black and white stripes put on long before D-Day stripes. At first some thought the Fw 190 were Curtis P-36s or other. With the Spitfire the Germans had a headache, is it a single or double stage supercharged version, does it have a Merlin or Griffon engine?
 
Both USA and UK cut the red circles from their markings to aid identification in the far east s it was obviously not as easy as most think.
 
Occasionally propaganda led to mis-identification, like the case of the He100, which was pushed as the He113 and seemed to be fairly effective, as RAF pilots claimed downing He113s during the Battle of Britain.

But by and large, it was important for the military to know what hardware his opponent had, so they looked through publications, viewed newsreels and any other source to identify that equipment.

The Allies knew that Japan had several German aircraft and applied ID codes for those types, too.
 
Just to clear up one point, the factory designation of the Lancaster was Lancaster, just as Spitfire was Spitfire.

British aircraft were built to specifications (alpha-numeric, the Lancaster started off as P.13/36) which could be modified or changed. Sometimes a new specification was issued with a production contract, and the letter designator was left off. Once a production contract had been issued the company could ask the Air Ministry to accept a name for the aircraft. There was a set of guidelines which had to be followed for the naming and, when followed, the Ministry usually agreed the name. The Lancaster was subject to the 1939 naming conventions which, for bombers, required that they be named after 'Place names - an inland town of the British Empire or associated with British history'. Lancaster clearly ticks both boxes. The Wars of the Roses were long forgotten, which maybe why the transport version was called the York.

The Spitfire was named under the 1932 convention (which was very similar to that of 1939) wherein fighters were to be named with 'General words indicating speed, activity or aggressiveness'.

The British gave all their aircraft a name. They operated Mustangs, not P-51s. American aircraft were to be named with more latitude. The convention stated that.
'Endeavours should be made, however, to follow as closely as possible the basic rules, but names with an American or Canadian flavour will be very appropriate. For instance, American built transports should not necessarily be named after a county or district of the British Empire, but would preferably be named after a district or state of the United States of America.'
Mustang obviously fits the bill for a fighter, as Dakota does for a transport. The USAC informed the BPC that they didn't care what we called US aircraft, and that it was not necessary to inform the US manufacturers, but the British considered it diplomatic to tell them anyway. Eventually the Americans adopted British names for many of their aircraft as unofficial nick names.
 
SaparotRob said:
So which side of the pond came up with Mustang?
Click to expand...
The British gave the name to the Mustang since it was built outright for them and not the USAAC.
When the US Army did accept the Mustang, their official name for it was Apache, but in a rare twist, soon adopted the British name to eliminate any confusion.
 
In some cases it is a question of "how much does it matter". I don't know if you could easily tell the difference between a Lancaster and a Halifax at night from behind, but it didn't matter, they were both certainly enemy bombers. For a rear gunner in a Lancaster or Halifax a twin engine aircraft may be a Ju 88 A Bf 110 or a Mosquito and it did matter.
 
YakMan said:
Hi chaps, one thing that has always made me wonder is how did opposing sides know what the other side's vehicles and aircraft were called? It can't surely have been done all by spies and interrogations can it? I don't think there is a data plate inside a P-38 that says Lightning or inside a Lancaster saying that (Idon't even know if the Lanc had a factory designation - it must have). Also they would warn aircrews about a new version of say, the Fw-190 been seen, I mean, how on earth did they know it was a new version? In combat all you get is a fleeting veiw as (hopefully) the enemy flashes past, hardly enough time so see bulges the D model didn't have or different shape fins etcetera. It just seems to me each side knew exactly what the other was doing?? Same with tanks and other AFV's, a new one appears, "Oh yes, thats the 'whatever' MkV with the slightly different shaped exhaust - easy to spot! Put me right someone!
Click to expand...

In many cases they did not know. The attached US intelligence report shows how little they knew at the time. Look at the A6M (Zero) and compare the information supplied with the real aircraft - shape 100% wrong for starters and at the time this publication was produced the US had been fighting against the A6M for four months. They even call it an ARMY aircraft. Also look at the Karigane which they call a fighter, and got the shape a little wrong when they should have known the exact shape at least from Mitsubishi Ki-15 Karigane Archives - This Day in Aviation
 

Attachments

  • FM 30-38 Identification of Japanese Aircraft (42-03-16).pdf
    864.7 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
MiTasol said:
In many cases they did not know. The attached US intelligence report shows how little they knew at the time. Look at the A6M (Zero) and compare the information supplied with the real aircraft - shape 100% wrong for starters and at the time this publication was produced the US had been fighting against the A6M for four months. They even call it an ARMY aircraft. Also look at the Karigane which they call a fighter, and got the shape a little wrong when they should have known the exact shape at least from Mitsubishi Ki-15 Karigane Archives - This Day in Aviation
Click to expand...
I liked the climb statistic for the Zero. "Fast".
 
pbehn said:
In some cases it is a question of "how much does it matter". I don't know if you could easily tell the difference between a Lancaster and a Halifax at night from behind, but it didn't matter, they were both certainly enemy bombers. For a rear gunner in a Lancaster or Halifax a twin engine aircraft may be a Ju 88 A Bf 110 or a Mosquito and it did matter.
Click to expand...

The aircraft most likely to be shot down by British night bombers was a twin for exactly that reason. It seems gunners could not distinguish a Wellington from a Do 17 or Bf 110. A Ju 88 you can almost excuse. There were also a lot of Wellingtons in service in the early years.

German night fighter pilots were better at recognition, though the default for some seems to have been the Lancaster. Some just claimed a four engine bomber.
 
Japanese aircraft seemed to be more troubling to the allies, recognition wise, compared to European aircraft? Sometimes pure fiction.
Try this one...:)

Silhouette.jpg
 
Graeme said:
Japanese aircraft seemed to be more troubling to the allies, recognition wise, compared to European aircraft? Sometimes pure fiction.
Try this one...:)

View attachment 586525
Click to expand...
There were several that were assigned an Allied code name that either didn't exist or were not in military service.
The one pictured looks to be an Aichi 104, code name "ione".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

tomo pauk
Nazi Germany, logistics, Allies advance (and the lack of it) etc
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Why did Britain appease Germany and Italy, but not Japan?
Replies
16
Views
849
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
A
How to prevent the 1943 Bengal famine
Replies
15
Views
1K
EwenS
E
J
Why did the Allies call Luftwaffe pilots "bandits"?
Replies
18
Views
2K
manta22
manta22
PETERTHEEATER
WHAT OUTFIT DOES THIS PATCH INDICATE
Replies
5
Views
1K
Dana Bell
D
Back