Luck.

[Graham Broad]

A few months back, I asked the question: what distinguished the highest scoring aces from those with smaller victory claims? Obviously, there isn't any one factor. But having read a ton of WW1 aviators' memoirs in the past few months, I've come to a conclusion: luck is underrated. Plain, stupid, simple, blind, remorseless, beyond human agency luck. Every pilot who lived long enough had multiple stories of near misses and close calls, the bullet that passed through their collar, the AA shell that lodged itself in their machine and didn't explode, the enemy plane that had them dead to rights and then inexplicably broke off, the crash they miraculously survived...and pilots died by such circumstances, too. How many great aces were killed by engine failure or a lucky shot from the ground or a mid-air collision? A second here or there, an inch or two in an opponent's aim, and suddenly Bishop or Voss or Mannock are dead before anybody has ever heard of them. And there are other kinds of rotten luck, too: like being assigned to fly DH-2s in late 1916! You're not going to rack up many victories even if you do survive, because the weather sucks, you don't fly that much, and you're totally outclassed by enemy scouts that can pick or choose when to engage or disengage, while you've got a worn out Lewis gun that jams all the time and worn out engine that goes dud all the time. Luck. Plain simple doo-dah luck. Not the only factor, by any means, but a big one. Just a thought.

Graham

[Volker_Nemsch]

.
One of the “lucky” guys certainly was David Tidmarsh!

In April 1916, when he flew at a height of about 3,000 m an anti-aircraft shell went straight through the tiny nacelle of his D.H.2. - more or less horizontally!

It entered on the right side, passed through the nacelle (only inches over his feet) and left the nacelle on the other side! It did not explode, it did not hurt Tidmarsh, no vital parts of the aircraft were damaged and so he returned with nothing else than cold feet caused by two crude, additional ventilation holes.

That’s luck!

.

[Barrett]

"War is the province of chance."
--Somebody famous, speaking of survival.

But luck also applied in opportunity--being in the right place at the right time. Aggressive fighter pilots (hunters) could improve their opportunities by flying as much as possible but that also could expose them to greater danger.

After all...

"War is a full contact sport."
--Cdr. John Nichols, USN

[R Gannon]

Personally I feel up to the advent of the Albatros DI on 17 Sep 16, the DH2 squadrons did a fine job, and even after, they were not that outfought, considering that they, unlike the adversaries, were fighting over their enemies side their side of the lines.

As to some of the high flyers, I'm increasingly convinced that some became intoxicated with fame and prestige, and that they exploited the latter to artificially inflate their scores; Bishop, Fonck, Ball perhaps(?) and even MvR in regards his last 30 victories. I personally worry about 'aces' who overly rave about their scores in letters to their loved ones, particularly expressing their desire to overtake the scores of their peers, as opposed to hoping they might still be alive to write the next letter.


Cheers Russ

[josquin]

Graham,

Your reflections on the importance of luck in time of war are noteworthy.
Luck's centrality for longevity is clear enough, both during wars and in everyday life. Paraphrasing Barrett, Life is the province of chance
and war is a parish in the province. Ultimately, probability governs
the ebb and flow of the events that comprise our lives, and deaths,
and the events of war are influenced by this as much as whether
one survives crossing the street tomorrow or next week. Remember,
though, that we can improve the odds by developing skill and knowledge. Jochen Marseille was known for his constant, disciplined flight and gunnery practice; Erich Hartmann kicked his rudder numerous times during every dogfight--and he said this maneuver saved his life several times; Cecil Lewis, in "Sagittarius Rising," described the superb, almost supernatural, piloting abilities of W.J.C. Kennedy-Cochran-Patrick and Georges Guynemer. Heeding the traditional view that luck is the arena where preparation meets opportunity will not lead us astray--in war, or in life.

Regards,

Josquin

[Graham Broad]

About the DH2: I agree they did a fine job, too. There's an interesting piece by A.M. Wilkinson that's buried in another set of papers in the National Archives in the UK. It's his account of his months with 24 over the Somme. I believe he was tied for highest scoring DH2 ace, and basically he describes the DH2 like this: it was a stolid performer at best: good at driving enemy aircraft off, but not what we today might call a "closer", because most German planes, even before Sept 1916, could dive, gain speed, and escape when they needed to, while the DH2's engine increasingly was prone to go dud. He complained about the single Lewis gun, too (as did many No. 24 sq pilots) but I won't belabor that point as lots of planes had the same or similar armament.

Interesting thing, though: the whole point, of course, was to get the observer/artillery spotter aircraft through, so they could take their pictures or direct artillery fire, and to that end driving enemy aircraft off meant they'd done their job for the day. I think sometimes we put too much emphasis on the great aces. The point of the air war, after all, was recce, taking pictures, and observing fall of shot. So here's to the two-seater pilots, the observers, and those hundreds of scout pilots nobody has ever heard of who helped them do their jobs: the unsung heroes of the air war.

Originally Posted by R Gannon

Personally I feel up to the advent of the Albatros DI on 17 Sep 16, the DH2 squadrons did a fine job, and even after, they were not that outfought, considering that they, unlike the adversaries, were fighting over their enemies side their side of the lines.

As to some of the high flyers, I'm increasingly convinced that some became intoxicated with fame and prestige, and that they exploited the latter to artificially inflate their scores; Bishop, Fonck, Ball perhaps(?) and even MvR in regards his last 30 victories. I personally worry about 'aces' who overly rave about their scores in letters to their loved ones, particularly expressing their desire to overtake the scores of their peers, as opposed to hoping they might still be alive to write the next letter.


Cheers Russ

[Barry Hickson]

Originally Posted by Graham Broad

About the DH2: I agree they did a fine job, too. There's an interesting piece by A.M. Wilkinson that's buried in another set of papers in the National Archives in the UK. It's his account of his months with 24 over the Somme. I believe he was tied for highest scoring DH2 ace, and basically he describes the DH2 like this: it was a stolid performer at best: good at driving enemy aircraft off, but not what we today might call a "closer", because most German planes, even before Sept 1916, could dive, gain speed, and escape when they needed to, while the DH2's engine increasingly was prone to go dud. He complained about the single Lewis gun, too (as did many No. 24 sq pilots) but I won't belabor that point as lots of planes had the same or similar armament.

Interesting thing, though: the whole point, of course, was to get the observer/artillery spotter aircraft through, so they could take their pictures or direct artillery fire, and to that end driving enemy aircraft off meant they'd done their job for the day. I think sometimes we put too much emphasis on the great aces. The point of the air war, after all, was recce, taking pictures, and observing fall of shot. So here's to the two-seater pilots, the observers, and those hundreds of scout pilots nobody has ever heard of who helped them do their jobs: the unsung heroes of the air war.

AMEN to that Graham!

[RAF56_Ball]

Bah! Spoken like a bunch of transport pilots. Graham Broad, you seem to forget the bomber guys (quiet down, W&P, and don't tell any one in TAC I said this, or I will have them take away your box lunch )

On a more serious note, though, is that while the staff weenies did not seem to appreciate how to deploy scouts as effectively as they could and tactics developement was slow, it occurs to me that in looking at aircraft developement, it seems far more scout varieties and variations were designed than recce or bomber types. Is that true or just a perception? Certainly seems far more were built, at least for the Allies.

[josquin]

"Luck to survive another day," Zif's thread that had its initial posting on this Forum on 31 January 2013, has 28 posts--the commentary amplifies and extends what has been raised on the current thread. The link for Zif's thread is "Luck to survive another day," in "Similar Threads" at the bottom of the first page of this thread.
Definitely worth a look if you missed it the first time around.

Josquin

[josquin]

Graham,

Frank Richards' celebrated Great War private soldier's memoir, "Old Soldiers
Never Die," published originally in 1933, describes his service with the
Royal Welch Fusiliers throughout all four years of the war. Luck was
certainly involved in the outcome for Pte. Richards--he fought bravely
(awarded the DCM & MM) in the major battles on the Western Front:
Le Cateau, Loos, the Somme, Third Ypres, the German Offensives of
1918, and the final hundred days. Throughout all this campaigning,
Richards was never wounded and was "demobbed" in the month
following the Armistice. Luck was a factor in his service because
he describes several close calls in which his life was saved by
leaving a certain spot a minute before his pal, or by where he decided
to sleep. As one reviewed understated, "It is clear that luck or fate
has a large part to play in who survives and who does not." Many
regard Richards' memoir as the finest memoir by a British private
soldier of the Great War. He provided a compelling instance of the
idea your post presented.

Josquin