Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 4 – uploaded by Gianluca Cinelli

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fokker in the air was an extremely unpleasant looking beast” (2000, 85).”° The technical superiority of Fokker E.III in 1915 and early 1916 made French and British pilots talk of themselves as “Fokker fodder”. Cecil Lewis remembers that in 1915 “a sort of mystery surrounded the Fokker. Nobody knew whether it had a rotary or a stationary engine. Few having been attacked by it had come back to tell the tale [...]. All we knew was that it was an evil-looking monoplane scout” (2003, 53). The counterpart of this German technical wonder was the Nieuport 11 (soon followed by the improved version 17), a fast biplane that many pilots praised as fast, agile, easy to handle, and beautiful. Italian ace Baracca writes enthusiastically about these “new and marvellous machines” (apparecchi nuovi e meravigliosi) (1919, 31), while Scottish pilot MacLanachan accurately describes its features such as the reduced wingspan, the surface of the upper and lower planes, the elegant “V” struts and the essential rigging that made the machine look “smart and tidy” (“McScotch” 1936, 7). Obviously, as a French product, the Nieuport was also very popular among French airmen, both famous like Fonck and unknown like “Lieutenant Marc”, who makes a comparison between this machine and the equally excellent SPAD VII:

Figure 4 Fokker in the air was an extremely unpleasant looking beast” (2000, 85).”° The technical superiority of Fokker E.III in 1915 and early 1916 made French and British pilots talk of themselves as “Fokker fodder”. Cecil Lewis remembers that in 1915 “a sort of mystery surrounded the Fokker. Nobody knew whether it had a rotary or a stationary engine. Few having been attacked by it had come back to tell the tale [...]. All we knew was that it was an evil-looking monoplane scout” (2003, 53). The counterpart of this German technical wonder was the Nieuport 11 (soon followed by the improved version 17), a fast biplane that many pilots praised as fast, agile, easy to handle, and beautiful. Italian ace Baracca writes enthusiastically about these “new and marvellous machines” (apparecchi nuovi e meravigliosi) (1919, 31), while Scottish pilot MacLanachan accurately describes its features such as the reduced wingspan, the surface of the upper and lower planes, the elegant “V” struts and the essential rigging that made the machine look “smart and tidy” (“McScotch” 1936, 7). Obviously, as a French product, the Nieuport was also very popular among French airmen, both famous like Fonck and unknown like “Lieutenant Marc”, who makes a comparison between this machine and the equally excellent SPAD VII:

Related Figures (9)

comes harmony — a sense of values” (Lewis 2003, 160). Mastery over machines elevates the human to a state of harmonic detachment. In such a state of elation. the pilot could tell the beauty of the aeroplane, especially scouts, whose description is a topos of most memoirs. Unlike the early, clumsy two-seaters like the MF.7 “Longhorn”, MF.11 “Shorthorn”, RE.2 or FE2.b, which were slow. vulnerable, and primitive-looking, the fast single-seater scouts are depicted as fast and powerful as predators, and slender and elegant like birds. The first twc were the Fokker E.III on the German side, the French Nieuport 11 and 17, anc the British Sopwith Scout. Kehrt defines the revolutionary monoplane Fokker EI] as a ground-breaking “instrument of violence” (Gewaltdispositiv) whose strength consisted in the compact unit of man and machine: the forme commanded both the steering and the firing through the propeller, so he only had to point the aeroplane itself against the target (Kehrt 2010, 183). Hans Buddecke saw in this fast scout the “ideal” of aerial warfare (Buddecke 1918, 43) and German ace Oswald Boelcke wrote that the small monoplane that “flies wonderfully and is very easy to handle” was like a “child” to tend and protect (1917, 47); Immelmann’s comment sounds soberer and _ technically detached: “They are pretty machines, light, fast, and agile. The pilot flies alone. He operates the machine gun that shoots through the propeller. The plane is only intended for fighting enemy planes, not for reconnaissance” (Immelmann 1916, 50). To Ernst Udet, the monoplane looked “wonderfully graceful, sleek as a falcon” (Udet 1935). McCudden, on the other side of the front, wrote that “the
comes harmony — a sense of values” (Lewis 2003, 160). Mastery over machines elevates the human to a state of harmonic detachment. In such a state of elation. the pilot could tell the beauty of the aeroplane, especially scouts, whose description is a topos of most memoirs. Unlike the early, clumsy two-seaters like the MF.7 “Longhorn”, MF.11 “Shorthorn”, RE.2 or FE2.b, which were slow. vulnerable, and primitive-looking, the fast single-seater scouts are depicted as fast and powerful as predators, and slender and elegant like birds. The first twc were the Fokker E.III on the German side, the French Nieuport 11 and 17, anc the British Sopwith Scout. Kehrt defines the revolutionary monoplane Fokker EI] as a ground-breaking “instrument of violence” (Gewaltdispositiv) whose strength consisted in the compact unit of man and machine: the forme commanded both the steering and the firing through the propeller, so he only had to point the aeroplane itself against the target (Kehrt 2010, 183). Hans Buddecke saw in this fast scout the “ideal” of aerial warfare (Buddecke 1918, 43) and German ace Oswald Boelcke wrote that the small monoplane that “flies wonderfully and is very easy to handle” was like a “child” to tend and protect (1917, 47); Immelmann’s comment sounds soberer and _ technically detached: “They are pretty machines, light, fast, and agile. The pilot flies alone. He operates the machine gun that shoots through the propeller. The plane is only intended for fighting enemy planes, not for reconnaissance” (Immelmann 1916, 50). To Ernst Udet, the monoplane looked “wonderfully graceful, sleek as a falcon” (Udet 1935). McCudden, on the other side of the front, wrote that “the
This French pilot testifies to the enormous leap forward that the fighting scout represented in the creation of the symbiotic unity of man and machine. The simplification of the cockpit, the ergonomic fitness of the seat, and the impression of having wings in place of arms make the pilot look like a thinking machine. As Huppauf writes, “pilots were literally and metaphorically at the
This French pilot testifies to the enormous leap forward that the fighting scout represented in the creation of the symbiotic unity of man and machine. The simplification of the cockpit, the ergonomic fitness of the seat, and the impression of having wings in place of arms make the pilot look like a thinking machine. As Huppauf writes, “pilots were literally and metaphorically at the
Other models such as the S.E.5a were praised for their speed and manoeuvrability (Lewis 1936, 163);2! McMillan compares the Sopwith Pup, “smooth and stable, mellow like old wine”, to her follower, the Camel, which was “a buzzing hornet, a wild thing” (1972, 131), so responsive to the pilot’s command that once she was steered too strongly (McMillan being used to flying the slower and less acrobatic two-seater Sopwith 1% Strutter),? “her tail Fig. 8: A Sopwith Pup with pilots wearing flight garments rose like a backing bronco’s and threw [him] head first out of the cockpit” (134). In such unfortunate an occasion, the security belt failed and McMillan found himself laying over the machine guns, with his face almost against the revolving propeller. Only struggling and with the help of good luck, McMillan crawled back into the cockpit and resumed the control of his machine.” Mastery of the machine was not enough to prevail on the adversary, for, as McCudden wrote, “it is more easy to find a Hun and attack him from a good position than it is to do the actual accurate shooting” (2000, 169). Italian ace Silvio Scaroni writes about that:
Other models such as the S.E.5a were praised for their speed and manoeuvrability (Lewis 1936, 163);2! McMillan compares the Sopwith Pup, “smooth and stable, mellow like old wine”, to her follower, the Camel, which was “a buzzing hornet, a wild thing” (1972, 131), so responsive to the pilot’s command that once she was steered too strongly (McMillan being used to flying the slower and less acrobatic two-seater Sopwith 1% Strutter),? “her tail Fig. 8: A Sopwith Pup with pilots wearing flight garments rose like a backing bronco’s and threw [him] head first out of the cockpit” (134). In such unfortunate an occasion, the security belt failed and McMillan found himself laying over the machine guns, with his face almost against the revolving propeller. Only struggling and with the help of good luck, McMillan crawled back into the cockpit and resumed the control of his machine.” Mastery of the machine was not enough to prevail on the adversary, for, as McCudden wrote, “it is more easy to find a Hun and attack him from a good position than it is to do the actual accurate shooting” (2000, 169). Italian ace Silvio Scaroni writes about that:
Figure 1: Map-scheme of relocation paths of Ukrainian agricultural research and educational institutions during the Second World War
Figure 1: Map-scheme of relocation paths of Ukrainian agricultural research and educational institutions during the Second World War
The Regional Research Centre of Ukraine was financed from the budget of th Reichskommissariat Ukraine under Section VI “Science, upbringing and publi education”, but the Special Group and its branch in Kherson and all th institutions that were subordinated to them were provided under Section VI “Food and agriculture”. Thus, during 1942-1943 there was a permanen reorganization of agricultural research under the Reichskommissariat Ukrain with the goal of maximizing the scientific potential of agriculture on Ukrainia1 lands. But agricultural research in Ukraine was not integrated into the genera German context, which once again confirms the colonial nature of th conquests.
The Regional Research Centre of Ukraine was financed from the budget of th Reichskommissariat Ukraine under Section VI “Science, upbringing and publi education”, but the Special Group and its branch in Kherson and all th institutions that were subordinated to them were provided under Section VI “Food and agriculture”. Thus, during 1942-1943 there was a permanen reorganization of agricultural research under the Reichskommissariat Ukrain with the goal of maximizing the scientific potential of agriculture on Ukrainia1 lands. But agricultural research in Ukraine was not integrated into the genera German context, which once again confirms the colonial nature of th conquests.
Related topics:
War StudiesAviationHistory of Military TechnologyCold War Science and TechnologyWarfare and TechnologyCold War historyManhattan ProjectNuclear War
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved