Talk:Jagdstaffeln

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War I B‑class

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Untitled

Please find more info on the jastas. I'm stuck using a reference from an amazon product discription! Rodeo90 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasta War Chronology: A Complete Listing of Claims and Losses,

Actually a fuller cite is:

Franks, Norman: Jasta War Chronology: A Complete Listing of Claims and Losses, August 1916-November 1918 - 1998 - ISBN= 1898697841

This was cited in the original stub for this article - but was not "really" cited at all - in fact the only "fact" referenced was copied word for word (or almost word for word) from the Amazon blurb. This is a current book, by a respected author, and although the actual "list" part is probably not strictly relevant to this article - if someone out there owns it it would be really great to have them read it and then the article - adding (perhaps deleting or editing) extra relevant matter and referencing this source in the process. In the meantime it is unethical to imply that the article has been checked against this source, when as far as I know nobody who has edited the article (including me) has read it! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Luftstreitkräfte purely defensive???

The new paragraph essentially agrees with the broad thrust of the earlier one to the extent of virtually repeating some of its content. The specific point that IS new is the idea that the essentially defensive nature of German air tactics originated at this point - rather than earlier (like from the beginning of the war) or later.

In any case, it is possible to over-stress the Allied (especially British) = offensive / German = defensive dichotomy - it wasn't quite that simple - although the jastas themselves were in practice mainly used defensively, German two-seaters (especially the specialist "J" and "CL" types) were often used very aggressively indeed - especially in support of German ground offensives and counter attacks. Long range reconnaissance and strategic bombing were both important German strategies. The development of high altitude reconnaissance types and faster strategic bombers (the "GL" types) in 1917/18 also sit ill with the conventional and often stated idea that German air strategy was purely defensive and reactive.

Further, the radical reorganisation and considerable expansion of the Luftstreitkräfte in mid/late 1916 seems to have been intended, at least initially, as an attempt to match the size as well as the quality of the Allied air forces (especially the RFC) rather than what would have amounted to an admission that the Germans had already essentially lost the air war. Acceptance of the fact that they "would always be outnumbered" seems to belong more to the period following the loss of air superiority to the allies in the later months of 1917, rather than mid 1916 when the jastas were first raised.

When I have a moment I may do some consolidation at this point - unless the original editor finds time to edit it himself first. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll refer back to Shores' work and try and expand some more on the added text.Harryurz (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a couple of swings at this - the result has been to move the important thing Shores covers that the article was previously a bit short on (the "defensive" operation of the Jastas) from the "background" to the "history" section. Mainly - we don't need to say the same thing over in different words. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jastas

This was reverted - as in its current form it was a bit meaningless. A table of notable jastas (some remained virtually "paper" units, I believe) - with actual information about each one would be good - but a straight 1,2,3,4, ... list? Acres of white space, and no real information. If you have a more interesting addition in mind, then let's see this when it's ready! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blank forms can seem meaningless until they are filled in. I have material on the Jastas which I was going to use to develop articles on the individual units. I was modeling the list of jastas on the list of RAF squadrons contained at List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. The overall goal was a list of jastas, with links to notable aces, just as I have been doing for the RFC/RAF/RNAS, and in parallel with similar future efforts for the Austro-Hungarian, French, Belgian, Italian, etc. air services.

The present article may offer links to "famous" jastas, but I am not aware of any standards for determining a unit's famousness. At any rate, I am on pause here. But for the future, can I add an article about a jasta without it's being preceded by a red link? That is, provided I can get some guidance on what constitutes a "famous" jasta. And I suppose the non-famous jastas, unlike non-famous RAF squadrons, will not be covered.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blank forms ARE meaningless until they contain at least some apposite information. When they ARE filled in the case may very well change. Why not save the "framework" on your own computer at home, work on it there, and paste it into the article when it is complete? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is very low priority on my slate of things to write. I doubt it will rise to anywhere near the top of my personal list until 2012 or so, if then.

Nor will I add to the list of "famous" jastas, because I am ignorant of the standards for that list.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's low priority rather than something you're currently working on, then all the more reason NOT to go cluttering up the article with a blank table at this stage, I would have thought. "Famous" jastas (by definition) are those we know a lot about - ones that are easier to write articles about because they (and their exploits) are mentioned in lots of sources. It's not quite the same as WWI RFC/RAF squadrons - which have a kind of "quasi-continuity" with modern units. This doesn't seem to have happened in the German units below "wing" (geschwader) level - there have been "Richthofen" wings in every German air force since 1917, for instance, but no continuation of unit tradition at "squadron" (staffel) level. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about lack of continuity in German staffel history is interesting. However, we are beating a dead horse here. As my joking comment about 2012 indicates, I will not be reviving this list any time soon, if at all.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allied two-gun fighters and German camouflage schemes

I have cut references (perfectly sound in themselves) to the fact that the newer Allied fighters of mid 1917 tended to have two guns, and that many German aircraft of the same period had the wings (and sometimes the fuselages as well) camouflaged in the famous "lozenge pattern" printed fabric.

This article was lashed up in haste to fill a gap some moons ago (by me), and is NOT as comprehensive as it ought to be - some of my original remarks make me wince a little as being rather hasty and not as well informed as a little more research might have made them - while there are other aspects - like the story of the "proto-jagdstaffeln" - the Fokkerstaffeln and the Kampfeinsitzercommandos (German speakers excuse my spelling) that don't, as yet, get proper treatment.

What we DON'T need, I fear, is endless detail on points very peripheral to the topic of the article. The two-gun allied fighters did achieve parity with the Albatros so far as armament was concerned, but this is a detail compared with the fact that they went faster, climbed better, and very often turned tighter too. And the single gun fighters like the Pup, Triplane and to a certain extent even the later Nieuports were also whittling at the Albatroses' superiority before that anyway. The printed fabric one is another point that may well deserve full treatment somewhere else - but it is not really that relevant at this point. In any case the distinctive disruptive patterns in green, purple and brown were also widely used on the wings of German aircraft in this period. Nor was either form of camouflage peculiar to the Jagdstaffeln (which may have increased their relevance for us at this point) but went right through the Luftstreitkrafte. The point actually being made here is that it is often not realised, especially in older texts, that most German fighters actually retained the camouflage on their wings.

Sorry to rabbit on a bit - but I didn't want anyone to feel I was deleting people's work without thinking about it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]