https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb

I did see one conspiracy theory that had these balloons spreading Covid!

The tin foil hat wearers have been having a field day!

Oh, the humanity….

Not so.
In WW II my father was on the front line with his barrage balloon ......... Coventry in the Blitz, Suez Canal attached to ships in canal transit, and attached to a warship for D Day. Very front line, very shot at.
Barrage Balloons were Fighter Command.

Barrage Balloons were Balloon Command.

Erm....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Balloon_Command

Is your Great War history as accurate?

Peer reviews suggest it is rather better, thank goodness.

Every day's a school day ........... my father told a naughty to his little boy! {I told him some lies too].
Memo to self Check the facts. Fortunately he sent home lots of letters and photos so the Blitz, Suez and D Day are authenticated.

One hobby of mine for a few years has been learning about military history. I find it fascinating to try and better understand why decisions were made and why certain tactics were used. One consistent theme is that what people believe to be true is based more on propaganda than fact.

WWI is a good example. The generals (on all sides) were trained and familiar with tactics that had existed for a couple of centuries. Teaching at places like Sandhurst focussed on learning from experience. The same applied at other military training establishments in other countries. One consequence of this is that leaders are often living in the past. Sometimes this works just fine. Some tactics that are centuries old are still valid. Sometimes this tactic falls over. Badly.

An example from WWI would be Von Kluck. His failure to effectively implement the Schlieffen Plan resulted in the tragic development of long term trench warfare. None of the forces involved had experience of this. The British had an inkling of what it might involve from the South African War (the Second Boer War), but that was nothing at all like the WWI experience.

Generals of the time (especially Haig) were deeply wedded to the concept of the cavalry charge. Many (most) had been cavalry officers. They believed that the horse reigned supreme. That biased their thinking. Crimea should have taught them that the days of the cavalry charge were numbered. It didn't. Even without horses they still thought that big charges were the way forward. Their thinking was medieval.

With the advent of a long, dug in, trench warfare line these generals (all of them, but especially Niville, Haig and von Kluck) were faced with a scenario their training and experience had not prepared them for. Sadly there is a lot of inertia in miltary training. If we could learn from experience quickly, and, to use a modern term, be more agile, we could be more effective (see Ukraine as a fantastic example of being agile).

Easy to be critical after the event. At the time of things happening we make decisions based on our knowledge and experience. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can now look back with the benefit from many scholars that have studied the events. With the benefit of this understanding we can put decisions made into the context of that time.

When I see the footage of low flying A-4s and Daggers in San Carlos Water, I sometimes think about the equivalent scenes from D-Day beaches and wonder if Barrage Balloons would’ve been useful in that context.

With respect I did ask for, and have not received, an example to support:

Sent tens of thousands "over the top" both to find out where the enemy defences were strongest and in the hope that a few might get through

This next quote is inaccurate:

Generals of the time (especially Haig) were deeply wedded to the concept of the cavalry charge. Many (most) had been cavalry officers.

At declaration of war the ratios of British cavalry generals to those from other arms were as follows:

Field marshals 2/ 8; Generals 1/ 18; Lt generals 3/ 27; Major generals 8/ 114

Source: the Army List and Terraine's: The smoke and the fire

Cavalry Training 1912 emphasizes scouting, reconnaissance, dismounted musketry and exploitation as major functions of cavalry. The charge as such gets scant attention in the index or indeed the content.

For further reading, see also Corrigan’s Mud Blood and Poppycock.
As there is no aviation content in this exchange, may I suggest that, if it were to be continued, it could be by PM?

One might mention that perhaps the most enthusiastic supporter of the RFC was one Douglas Haig; he arguably ensured, although not deliberately, that Trenchard was the only obvious candidate to be CAS when the RAF was formed (and that Trenchard's nemesis, Sykes (and no fan of Haig's either), almost certainly invented or misrepresented the supposed line of Haig's that he hoped the people he was speaking with didn't think aeroplanes would be any use in future war). Haig told his gunners after Neuve Chapelle that he wouldn't 'tolerate early Victorian methods' when it came to ranging the guns and he didn't care if they thought the RFC was an upstart organisation attempting to correct their fire - if they weren't prepared to take fire corrections, Haig wasn't prepared to have them holding command positions in First Army.

Dowding went from horse-drawn artillery to the RFC. Spirit of adventure, trying out something new?

Slow enough in those days to shoot a balloon, a blimp or an airship, though.

Meanwhile back on topic.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64633705

Just seen a very funny comedy sketch where they suggested the Chinese should have written "THE MOON" on their balloon which would have confused many Americans.

Or perhaps "Wensleydale?"

Balloons are steerable. They steer by varying their height until they meed an airstream which is going their way. At different altitudes, the wind speed and direction are different.

Of course you have to have an air stream going where you want to go, at a suitable altitude to maintain a covert presence and you have to know where the airstream is. How feasible is that?

Do you remember this?

Was able to return precisely to his point of departure.
Not sure how much luck was involved.

The location and strength of jet streams has been remarkably accurately known since about 1980 and incredibly well forecast for substamtial periods ahead since about 2000. It is one of the nice uncomplicated aspects of Met., because no H2O enters the equations. Or, at least, it didn't back in the day.

iIf you want to manoeuvre and loiter, surely you would stay out of the jet stream?