Talk:Ottoman Aviation Squadrons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What happened to the Airforce schools and industry?[edit]

After WW1 they disappeared. Where is the rest of the story after WW1?

Comments[edit]

Needs references. Cla68 07:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little article, maybe we can enlarge it. Good job.--Murat (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need a reference section.--Murat (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of planes, 460 transferred to Ottomans by Germans seem very very high. There were not that many pilots around, hangars, strips or other personnel needed to accomodate this number. Should be referenced.--Murat (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of planes is realistic. Remember that these were distributed over a period of more than three years, so there were far fewer than this total in service at any time. 69.110.145.155 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)jpiccone[reply]

Request for help[edit]

I have started work on the Air commanders of World War I. Any help that editors can offer in the Ottoman section, or elsewhere, would be greatly appreciated. Greenshed (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Benjy Gordon?[edit]

Never heard of him. Reference?Murat (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Too much of the terminology is in modern Turkish rather than Ottoman (Bakanlik vs Nezaret); this should be fixed. 69.110.145.155 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)jpiccone[reply]

Copyright problem[edit]

Story of Turkish Aviation (This page is last updated on: 01.08.2008.)

In this article before 01.08.2008 = like this.

Takabeg (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelvant Entry[edit]

It is not clear exactly what the purpose of the first reference in the first paragraph of the article is. Exactly what is the reference for? What exactly is being debated or argued or what fact supported? This irrelevant commentary, by poolry informed and non-expert editor is poorly referenced, does not belong in the opening pragraph. I open it to discussion here. It will be removed until a real rationale presented and argued.Murat (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


For writing article about Ottoman military, I used Edward J. Erickson and so on. As long as I know, Erickson takes slightly pro-Ottoman stance.

But Erickson mentioned

this term (Ottoman Air Force) is a gross exaggeration and often repeated in contemporary Turkish sources.

Some non academic books use this term (Ottoman Air Force), academic researches about Ottoman military aviation use squadrons.

So we must call readers attention about this exaggeration. Thank you.

Takabeg (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Erikson is hardly a primary source on Ottoman Airforce, as his main focus was somewhere else. Pro-Ottoman? What is this has anything to do with a title? I suppose it shows your ethnic interperatation of most things on these pages and explains a lot. A title is either right, or wrong. What does exaggeration mean? I am asking again, what exactly is the exaggeration? If that is not explained then I will isist that this diversion be removed. Ottoman government and military officially established an air arm, like some other countries at the time. What is exactly exaggerated, Erickson is not clear, neither are you. This belongs in the first paragraph? If you have another name in mind, by all means, put it in a re-direct. After you get concensus. Most people looking for Ottoman Airforce or aviation, will not be searching for Air Squadrons. So one wonders what the agenda is. I urge you to enrich and expand the article IF you have anything real to add, which seems not to be case. In that case, at least spare this article from the ethnic based distortions. My objection remains, and but moving the text and quote to the reference I thought was a good compromise - for now.Murat (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is that there was no Ottoman Air Force in history. Takabeg (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange, especially since a simple google search yielded over 190 hits for Ottoman Airforce and only 8 for the Ottoman Aviation Squadrons. Air Force of a any country is recalled by the name of the country as the it is the convention for ALL air forces, even in Wikipedia.Murat (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:NAME says 'Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by.'
Maybe the above was not clear, I have googled "Ottoman Air Force", and as far as I know that is in English.Murat (talk)

Right now we have one reliable source (Erickson) saying 'Aviation Squadrons', and the commonplace placeholder term because none of us knew any better, unsupported by any sources as far as I know - 'Ottoman Air Force'. The best way to settle this is to find some better sources in English on the early history of Ottoman military aviation. Then we can make a better informed decision. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway nobody has right to remove historical fact repeatedly like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_Squadrons_(Ottoman_Empire)&diff=prev&oldid=431991215 by User:Hudavendigar (Murat)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_Squadrons_(Ottoman_Empire)&diff=prev&oldid=431934050 by User:Hudavendigar (Murat)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_Squadrons_(Ottoman_Empire)&diff=prev&oldid=431266077 by User:Hudavendigar (Murat)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_Squadrons_(Ottoman_Empire)&action=historysubmit&diff=421424402&oldid=420957757 by anonim

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_Squadrons_(Ottoman_Empire)&action=historysubmit&diff=419499489&oldid=418080985 by aninim

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_Squadrons_(Ottoman_Empire)&action=historysubmit&diff=414704332&oldid=414260138 by User:Ben diyom Angara

Takabeg (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Ottoman Air Force[edit]

There is an article, written by no other than Major Erich Serno, commander of the Ottoman Air Force, titled "The History of the Ottoman Air Force in the Great War". It was translated and edited by Dr. Brian P. Flanagan (original recovered by a Major Hans Hattendorff from Serno's widow, and I am holding in my hand a rare replica), and appeared in the famous CROSS & COCKADE, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1966, pp 140-154. Not only in the title of the article Ottoman Air Force is prominantly mentioned, throughout the whole lengthy article it is referred to with that name. Note that this is a respected aviation magazine, a primary source. As opposed to Erikson, whose focus was more on the land battles and mentions Aviation Squadrons only in passing which a particular editor here seems to have locked on and this is hardly Erikson's expertise. Then there are those close to 200 or so google hits (in English), which seem to be redundant at this point. I urge you again to restore the original title of the article as you have implied you would upon me producing a suitable and proper reference, and then we can certainly continue the argument and parse Erikson's passing comment. I also propose a re-direct from Squadrons. Thank you.Murat (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have provided the most authoritive reference one can possibly provide, directly from the writings of the commander of the Ottoman Air Force himself. His very title was the "Commander of the Ottoman Air Force". By the way, Germans called this new Air Force "Ottoman Flieger-truppe", which roughly translates to "Osmanli Hava Kuvvetleri" or "Ottoman Air Force" which seems to be derived from the former. Squadron is a different word which they did not use. I could also recommend The Epic of Flight from Time-Life Books, a wonderful multi-volume series. In the volume titled Knights of the Air, on page 40, there is a picture of an Ottoman Air Force officer uniform. The hat and tunic, pretty handsome!Murat (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking abou the references here. Why, may I ask, have you not added all this data and refs before, which might have avoided the issue (for at least the 14-18 period)? Please do go ahead and add everything in including isbns where available. OK, that's the situation by some point during WW1. We have a variety of mentions of an Aviation Inspectorate etc before WW1 - do you have any data on the situation before the war? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to this article extensively over time and will continue to do so. It has only recently attracted the attention of biased editors as is the fate of any article in Wikipedia even remotely related to Ottomans and Turks. I would like you to first restore the original title that was changed without a proper discussion and explanation on the basis of a passing reference in a tangential reference. Only then I can add some of the references mentioned and also discuss the proper context of Erikson reference here if still desired. Situation before WWI was also covered in some detail in the article I believe. I also repeat my proposal of adding a re-direct from "Aviation Squadrons" to satisfy other editors who are fixated on it. Thank you for your attention to the matter. Murat (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunnately I found attemptions that try to remove Erickson's pointing out and historical facts with their national POV pushing biases. As mentioned above, the term "Ottoman Air Force" is popular. I think we can use the term "Ottoman Air Force" expediently in appropriate sentences. But it's clear there was no "Ottoman Air Force" in history and it is not accurate term. Even after Serno was appointed as the commander of the Inspectorate of Aviation Affairs (Umuru Havaiye Mufettisligi) and renamed the General Inspectorate of the Air Force (Kuva-i Havaiye Mufettisi Umumiligi) in July 1918, aviation units and pilots had never belonged to "Ottoman Air Force" but belonged to the Ottoman Army and Ottoman Navy and Serno couldn't command them. As Buckshot06 said, the term Aviation Squadrons is more accurate for the scientific approach. In this article, we refer to not only Ottoman aviation squadrons but also to peripheral activity of the Ottoman military aviation. I propose Military aviation of the Ottoman Empire or History of military aviation of the Ottoman Empire. Takabeg (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly inappropriate for such a massive edit while there is this discussion going on and without a concensus. I am still confused why a seasoned editor would take such action, especially since also clearly this is out side of their expertise. Clearly and obviously, there was an Ottoman Air Force. In ALL countless references and documents that is how it is referenced. The very person who played a leading role did call it Ottoman Air Force, which was also part of his title in ALL English and non-Turkish sources. That is the proper AND scientific way to categorize ANY nation's airforce. This is the norm for ANY encyclopedic source that aims to be a reference source. Any other details of organization, structure, historic names of departments can and should be dealt with in the body of the article. I have also proposed to include other proposed obscure titles and labels to re-directs if the aim is other than some biased agenda. WE have now establised, as the editor who changed the name requested, that there are references to the Ottoman Air Force in English and non-Turkish sources. We have now established that Ottoman Air Force is the popular and proper title of the article. I expect the editor who promised that I produce at least one English reference for him to restore the original and proper title to do the right thing asap. Murat (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please everybody cease accusations of racial bias etc. This is a relatively simple question of fact, which we owe it to our readers to get right. We are not interested in creating a phantom organisation should one not have existed. If there were actually only seperate avaition departments within the army and navy, we should not refer to an 'Ottoman Air Force.' Murat, Takabeg seems to be making some reasonable arguments based on fact. Would you please respond directly as to whether his statements are correct, and if not, refute them? It is quite plausible that the organisation was named in English popular works the 'Ottoman Air Force' while correctly they should have been refering to the Ottoman Army or Navy Aviation Inspectorate or department. Please respond directly regarding the organisation titles Takabeg is refering to. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus was to replace the current title but it appears that further discussions could lead to a different name. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Aviation Squadrons (Ottoman Empire) → Ottoman Air Force — The term is used in reliable sources, is the most WP:Common name, is not a name made up for Wikipedia (as is the current name), clearly identifies the topic, and is the most likely search term. SilkTork *Tea time 10:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
You are aware that you have made a mistake? Did you look at the sources I've linked to below? This is not a matter of opinion - the sources are very clear that there was an Ottoman Air Force, that it was called Ottoman Air Force, and that it had several army and navy squadrons within its force. I think you have misunderstood the nature of those squadrons and assumed that the squadrons controlled the Air Force rather than the other way round. But the sources are clear that the Air Force was formed by the government, not the army, and that it came under direct command of the War Ministry. SilkTork *Tea time 11:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I aslo use Ordered to Die to write articles. And we know this author points that the very term Ottoman Air Force is a gross exaggeration and he avoids to use the term in the text of his books. As I said above, we can use the term "Ottoman Air Force" expediently in appropriate sentences. But it is unsuitable for the title of this article. Military aviation in the Ottoman Empire is more comprehensive and suitable title for this article. Why do you oppose it ? Takabeg (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but you note that the source you depend on is calling it the Ottoman Air Force. His argument is that, while overall command was with the government, as an air force it was poorly organised, and tactical command was local. I think you are misreading the phrase the very term Ottoman Air Force is a gross exaggeration to mean that it wasn't called Ottoman Air Force; however, it doesn't mean that, it means that the author feels that the size and operation of the air force was small and confused. It isn't saying that the term Ottoman Air Force is wrong, but that this very early example of an air force was not as we understand an air force today. The thrust of his argument is that even though in fact and theory controlled by the government and as such independent of the army or navy, it happened that most of the day to day operations were decided by whoever was using or flying the planes, which was mainly the Army. It is a step too much to go from that to claiming that the air force was Army owned, and that in fact it wasn't an air force at all, but simply an aviation squadron of the Army. The Turkish Air Force is a separate unit from the Turkish Army, and regards the Ottoman Air Force as its origins. All sources, including the one you quote, are saying that it was called the Ottoman Air Force, and that (despite local operations coming under control of either the Army or Navy) it was an independent organisation directly controlled by the War Ministry. I understand why you made the mistake. The wording at first glance can lead a reader to think that control was in the hands of the army. But it's worth a re-read. SilkTork *Tea time 10:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that while some army officers were trained to become pilots, the air force also used pilots from other countries, such as France. That some of the personnel came from the army and that idea was army initiated makes the matter cloudy, but the Bülent Yılmazer source does say that control of the air force (albeit "loosely") was in the hands of a War Ministry department. Given that reliable sources use the term Ottoman Air Force, that overall control (however loosely, and however poorly realised) was independent of the army and was intended to be a distinct force, and that the Ottoman Air Force is seen as the forerunner of the Turkish Air Force, it seems appropriate to call this article Ottoman Air Force. SilkTork *Tea time 11:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bülent Yılmazer has never used the term "Ottoman Air Force" in the article titled "Ottoman Aviation, Prelude to Military Use of Air Craft" [1]. Takabeg (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Thankyou SilkTork for linking the 'Ordered to Die' section. I'm reexamining the proffered sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now. The current title is terrible. The proposed title is better (simpler and more elegant), and the other proposal, Military aviation in the Ottoman Empire, is acceptable and perhaps the best overall. I have some issues with how SilkTork is interpreting the sources, but it does seem that the term "Ottoman Air Force" is not so mis-representative (given the era: this is all pre-1920) or anachronistic as to be misleading. The Ottomans were doing what the other nations were doing, although the collapse of their empire stopped their "air force" from becoming what the air force became in other countries before too long. Finally, the term is well-used in reliable sources, at least as a shorthand. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support strongly. There is a long article by Major Erich Serno, commander of the Ottoman Air Force, titled "The History of the Ottoman Air Force in the Great War". It was translated and edited by Dr. Brian P. Flanagan, and appeared in the famous CROSS & COCKADE, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1966, pp 140-154. Not only in the title of the article Ottoman Air Force is prominantly mentioned, throughout the whole lengthy article it is referred to with that name. A simple search finds about 200 hits for Ottoman Air Force, and only 8 for the contender, all here. This article has had thousands of hits over the many years it has been in existance, there was not one single problem or complaint about the title, except for one and only one editor. Any person not knowledgeable and looking into the topic will naturally type in Ottoman Air Force, nothing else. Murat (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Srnec. The current name is most awkward. Kauffner (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • My understanding of the sources, such as here, is that the Ottoman Air Force had three Naval and five Army squadrons as part of its overall eighteen squadrons, and it is possible that a misunderstanding of the organisation has happened and those naval and army squadrons have been assumed to be the entirely of the air force, rather than just part of it. SilkTork *Tea time 11:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source - Turkish public administration: from tradition to the modern age is very clear about the formation of the Air Force, that it was under direct control of the War Ministry, not the Army or Navy. SilkTork *Tea time 11:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source used in the article to support not using the term Ottoman Air Force, actually uses the term and explains that the Air Force was under the control of the government not the army: [2]. Given the overwhelming evidence that there was an Ottoman Air Force, and that its name was Ottoman Air Force, and that is the name used by all reliable sources on the topic, I am perplexed as to why the name was changed in the first place. SilkTork *Tea time 11:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single air force in the world came into being as a seperate force, and none were called "air force" from get go. Air force has come to refer to the general military aviation capability of a nation or a group. All early pilots were selected from army ranks, there was no other alternative, in all nations. Armies fought hard not to give up their total control over this new force. Ottoman Air Force was simply following the same path. Murat (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, there were the Ottoman Army and Ottoman Navy but there was no separate air force named "Ottoman Air Force". The British Army's Royal Flying Corps became the Royal Air Force, but Ottoman air units or "air forces" didn't become "Ottoman Air Force". Takabeg (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token , there is no such a thing called "Turkish Army", as its proper and full name is "Turkish Armed Forces". What would make sense here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs)
What ? The Turkish Army is the main branch of the Turkish Armed Forces. Takabeg (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Turkish Land Forces" to be technically and scientifically correct!Murat (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Turkish Army is equal to the Turkish Land Forces. But the Turkish Armed Forces is upper organization. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not! "Turkish Land Forces" is technically, literally and scientifically NOT the same as or equal to "Turkish Army"! Which part is not clear? Murat (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly and very related, modern Turkish Air Force is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. It clear what they consider to be the beginning of their organization. On a side note, when the new airforce of the Turkish Republic was reconstituted from the remains of the Ottoman Air Force in 1920, it was put under the control of the new parliament. Murat (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To use your logic, "Turkish Army" is not same as "Turkish Land Forces", so there is no Turkish Army! Murat (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regard to years of establishment, official claims don't be related to scientific truth. For example, the command of the Turkish Land Forces claimed that it was found in 1363 and celebrated its 600th anniversary in 1963[1]. Today it claims that it was found in 209 BC by Modu Chanyu of Xiongnu[2]. They are closely related to Turkish nationalism and nationalistic policy. Takabeg (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is more natural than histiography of armed forces of any nation being closely related to nationalism and nationalistic policies. Still, there has to be more truth in it than myth and fantasy. "Scientific" truth does not need to be get lost and should and could be treated and expanded in the body of the article or handled with stubs or re-directs. All were and are still possible. Murat (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some users shew "Kuvayı Havaiye Müfettiş-i Umumiliği" to prove the existence of the "Ottoman Air Force". Serno's office named "Umuru Havasiye Müfettişliği" (Inspectorate of Aviation Affairs) was renamed "Kuvayı Havaiye Müfettiş-i Umumiliği" in July 1918. We can translate this term as "General Inspectorate of/for Air forces" word by word. Erickson used "Aviation Inspectorate" as the title of his article. Serno's case was similar to the case of Heinz Guderian. Guderian was appointed "Inspekteur der Panzertruppen" but there was no combined "Panzer Armies", he couldn't enjoy operational command of panzer forces. In related articles, if we use the term such as "airplane of the Ottoman Air Force", we would provide false information to readers. So I prefer "Military aviation in the Ottoman Empire" to others (Ottoman Air Force & Aviation Squadrons). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  1. ^ Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız, "Türk Kara Ordusu Ne Zaman Kuruldu?", Orkun, No. 18, 15 July 1963.
  2. ^ "Türk Kara Kuvvetleri Tarihçesi", Kara Kuvvetleri temeli; Hun İmparatorluğu döneminde Mete Han tarafından M.Ö.209 yılında atılmıştır.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Advice to read: http://www.bogaziciyayinlari.com.tr/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=258[edit]

http://www.bogaziciyayinlari.com.tr/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=258

http://ataturkilkeleri.istanbul.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Onder_Kocaturk-Osmanli_Pilotlarinin_Istanbul_Kahire_Iskenderiye_Seyahati-icindekiler.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.15.141 (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, need some more cites on this one...[edit]

Ottoman troops opened fire on an Italian aircraft on 15 December 1911. The first aircraft to be brought down in a war was that of Lieutenant Manzini, shot down on 25 August 1912

Credible references I can find says Manzini suffered engine failure shortly after takeoff, and that the first aircraft actually shot down in combat was being flown by M. Popov, hit by shrapnel shells over Adrianople on 30 October 1912.

here here

Can anyone get a good counterexample?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Operations"[edit]

"In August 1914, the Ottoman military aviation had eight planes assigned for operations and four in the flying school in San Stefano; of six operational planes, two were sent to eastern Anatolia, with the others retained at the flying school."

This statement is confusing. So they had twelve planes, with two operational in eastern Anatolia, eight in flying school and two unknown? 91.10.47.242 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many planes[edit]

Section Structure and organisation says: "By the war's end, the Ottoman aviation squadrons had become a potpourri of about 200 supplied, purchased, and captured aircraft from Germany, France, Russia, and Britain."

Section Operations says: "With the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918, the Ottoman military aviation effectively came to an end. At the time of the armistice, the Ottoman military aviation had around 100 pilots; 17 land-based airplane companies (4 planes each); and 3 seaplane companies (4 planes each); totalling 80 aircraft."

These two statements seem inconsistentNickpheas (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_Aviation_Squadrons&oldid=1209559267"