17 hour life expectancy? Not for the German pilots

[Olham 164]

"The Aerodrome" have the WW1 air services listed per squadron / Jasta,

and I got curious to see the relationships between victories and losses.

So I collected the numbers for the first 25 German Jastas fighting at the

Western front. I wanted to see the earliest Jastas with the longest service

time (they all fought until the end of WW1). All those listed here were

formed in the second half of 1916; so they fought more than two years.

 

I was very surprised about the very low losses, even in those Jastas with

a high victory rate (listed are only the confirmed victories).

 

This shows clearly, that the "17-hour-life-expectancy" did not count for

the German Jastas; it must have been only an Entente -, or maybe even only

a British problem. I will research the numbers for Entente squadrons/Esc.

next, and compare them.

 

For the German side it can be said, that they seem to have cared very well

for the education and training of their pilots, and that they seem to have

protected their "rookies" very well.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2010 by Olham

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

A very valid point Olham, and I believe the 17 hours is an average across the board for all the air services in the Great War. I know that early in the conflict there were far too many British pilots killed on their first or second mission due to lack of training or supervision. Here is a quote from a post I made in another recent thread that hit on the subject of training:

 

As to your pondering about the number of hours a flight student had before he was "breveted". It varied, A LOT. The French were the best at preparing their young aviateurs, and most had upwards of three to five months training at the large flight schools such as Avord. They began with the "penguins" and systematically worked their way along, all the way to full acrobatics training, before being sent to the front. The Americans tended to follow the French model, likely because so many of the early American volunteers flew with the French before the U.S. entered the War. The Germans and Austrians also provided a lot of first-rate, practical training. The Brits were atrocious and sent pilots to live, or more likely die, with as little as 8 hours of actual flying, and often none of it in the planes they would be assigned in combat, (they did however vastly improve their system as time went on but not until losing many, many unprepared flyers). The Belgians didn't seem to have a clue and did everything from requiring their flyers to go to England and pay for their own training; to pawning them off on the French, (the lucky ones); to sending them to their own small flight schools where they could sit for months and get no more than 20 hours of flight time before being sent up. In fact, in the Belgian schools, any initiative on the part of a young student to try and press beyond the rudimentary take-offs and landings being woefully taught resulted in several days of lock-up for the "offender". Read Willy Coppen's "Days On The Wing" if you want the full, first-hand account on Belgian flight training.

 

I've no doubt the Germans and Austrians, and also the French, had a much higher average survival rate due to their better schooling and diciplined flying that existed in their ranks from almost the beginning.

 

.

[Von Paulus 8]

I might be wrong, but that 17 hour figure is only for RFC. That number might be inflated by Bloody April.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Von Paulus

[+Polovski 424]

Excellent info Olham thanks.

 

The figure originally is from the RFC I believe. Also note the German squadrons are operating over their own lines mostly, so can disengage much more easily as few allied craft are going to head off deeper into enemy territory to chase. They can also attempt to land more easily if damaged to a friendly airfield. They have no need to struggle with a dodgy engine into a head wind, trying to get back over NML whilst being shot at by AA fire. And if they do emergency land will get the chance to learn from that and fight on thus gaining experience from the combat. If it was a British pilot, he'd likely be captured and now that experienced pilot learns no more and is of course replaced by yet another rookie ;)

 

Various other tactics would help too. Each side fighting a totally different war basically.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

All excellent points, and I should have remembered that the 17-hour figure was really only for the RFC in the first couple years of fighting. Another point to consider is that as the end of the War was looming the tables turned and it was the German Air Service that began to lose pilots at a faster rated than the Allies. They began sending up young flyers who simply weren't ready in an effort to try and keep up with the number of enemy planes in the sky, (exactly what the Brits did two years earlier).

 

.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Fatal accidents aren't as high as I had thought, but quite a few pilots must have suffered at least minor injuries in accidents, which those numbers don't show.

 

It's easy to see which Jastas were in the midst of the toughest fighting, just look at the losses suffered (and enemies shot down) by Jasta 2 and 11, for example.

 

Makes me wonder about our kill numbers in the OFF DiD campaign - in Jasta 6 we have already shot down more planes in a couple of months than the real pilots did during two years of war. And we've also lost quite a few wingmen.

[cptroyce 0]

Olham-thanks for posting those stats..personally I enjoy those compilations. As I recall, the 17 hours was a "stat" that pertained to the Brits during the Bloody April campaign, and then seemed to be perpetuated as the War" stat from the early RB3 forums.

 

Regards,

Royce

[+Polovski 424]

The other point that has come up many times Hasse is if you had ONE real life, and not 10000 hours of virtual flying and knowledge of WW1, would you engage and hang around in a dogfight much? So basically what we have currently in flight sims is a condensed situation. You have more flying hours, an easier situation without the real stresses etc. and can rack up kills easier.

[Dej 17]

I believe that striking statistic, i.e. the 17.5 hour operational lifespan is centred on the shock of 'Bloody April' and was then perpetuated as an 'urban myth' for most of the rest of the War, especially at home. Actually, it's probably more complicated still. Here's an extract from the RAF's offical history site at raf.mod.uk:

 

"April 1917- In the first week of "Bloody April", the RFC lost 75 aircraft in action. Average life expectancy of a pilot in France during this time was 2 months, and some aircrew were arriving with as little as 17.5 hours flying time under their belt. By the end of the month the RFC had lost a total of 150 aircraft and 316 aircrew, the French and Belgians 200 aircraft and the Germans 370."

 

These figures too, as so many others, are probably disputable or can be broken down in different ways.

 

Nevertheless, the fact is, as has been pointed out, the German air services always had the advantage of fighting over their own side of the lines and they generally with the wind in their favour. In April 1917 they also had a superior machine vs thier British counterparts along most of the British part of the Front. And they still had superior manpower... most German scout pilots of the time having come to it via a good amount of time in two-seaters, where they learned (when air fightning was in its early infancy) how to spot other aircraft; how to fly; how to stalk and importantly how to shoot. Thus most German pilots joining one of the innovative Jastas was considerable more experienced than most British pilots he would be facing.

 

Trenchard's policy of 'always on the offensive' put the RFC at a considerable disadvantage on more than one occasion.

[zoomzoom 2]

Makes me wonder about our kill numbers in the OFF DiD campaign - in Jasta 6 we have already shot down more planes in a couple of months than the real pilots did during two years of war. And we've also lost quite a few wingmen"

 

This may well be due to the fact that people tend to play in an unrealistic fashion....."no skin in the game", and therefore do things flippantly that result in more kills, than they would do in real life. Change the gaming style and try to think realistically in sim, and you may well see these figures drop. This kinda ties in with what Pol was saying.

 

ZZ.

Edited February 23, 2010 by zoomzoom

[Olham 164]

Polovski: Each side fighting a totally different war basically.

 

So true, Pol. The German air force fought a defensive fight - perhaps like the British

in the Battle of Britain. Less pilots, but over own terrain.

 

RAF_Louvert: Another point to consider is that as the end of the War was looming the tables turned

and it was the German Air Service that began to lose pilots at a faster rated than the Allies.

 

Well, the above Jastas all fought until the end of the war, and still they had very few losses.

 

Pol: So basically what we have currently in flight sims is a condensed situation. You have more flying hours,

an easier situation without the real stresses etc. and can rack up kills easier.

 

True - and we still only survive a month or two. Shows, that the level of AI lethality in OFF is very good, I'd say.

Dej, I think we all want to know the right and full facts, so I will also list the records of the British and French services,

and finally make a comparison table.

[Olham 164]

PS: Although we only "play" WW1 in our "Krauts vs Crumpets", I really suffer a bit with

my British fellow pilots, and I am fully aware, that it must be much harder for them to

remain in our game.

I watch them with great respect.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Olham

[Olham 164]

Just tried to continue my work, with the British Squadrons and the French Escadrilles.

Strange enough: there were hardly any useful numbers given. Only some British showed claims,

but not the confirms, nor the losses. Same for the French.

 

If anyone knows a source, please tell me.

[catch 81]

 

The figure originally is from the RFC I believe. Also note the German squadrons are operating over their own lines mostly, so can disengage much more easily as few allied craft are going to head off deeper into enemy territory to chase. They can also attempt to land more easily if damaged to a friendly airfield. They have no need to struggle with a dodgy engine into a head wind, trying to get back over NML whilst being shot at by AA fire. And if they do emergency land will get the chance to learn from that and fight on thus gaining experience from the combat. If it was a British pilot, he'd likely be captured and now that experienced pilot learns no more and is of course replaced by yet another rookie ;)

 

 

Precisely Polovski. And as a result, I have far more regard for the Allied pilots and aces who did it very tough in comparison with the pampered (and may I add perhaps a touch too arrogant) German air force that didn't believe the unbelievable could happen. Their loss.

[Dej 17]

Ah, well. The information on The Aerodrome is incomplete, like any other source, alas! One thing to bear in mind regarding British victories is that they are more suspect, all things considered, than their German, French or American counterparts. The British simply were not as rigorous in their criteria for awarding victories. Thus, if you do find a source for numbers, the British ones won't be as reliable as other forces. Various historians' research has firmed some areas up a bit but there's still a lot of circumspection.

 

And what I said about the German Air Service, whilst I hold it to be true, wasn't meant to denigrate in any way, Olham. Your ancient compatriates fought a wise and skillful battle and played to their advantage... there's nothing to criticise in that. In the end, just as in WWII, they were overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers and the unavoidable demise thereby of their experten... but if the playing field had remained level... I'd have bet on Germany.

 

[EDIT] To add, having read Catch's post which went up whilst I was correcting my appalling typing, one can admire the Allies for the obstacles thay found themselves faced with, across the board... but it doesn't account in full for the disparity in the military gains of the Central Powers vs those of the Entente. Now the reasons one alliance of nations loses a war whilst another wins it are myriad and would spark another long discussion, but in the context of the skies Over Flanders Fields I wouldn't say that German pilots didn't have the upper hand when they did 'fair and square'. They played to their advantage. If the British chose to send over teenagers with 17.5 hours against experianced German aviators with better machines that's hardly the fault of the latter. Hmmm... becoming uncommonly impassioned... stopping before I offend... hope it isn't too late.[/EDIT]

Edited February 23, 2010 by Dej

[+Polovski 424]

I don't think "fault" comes into it. The young pilots were trained, at whatever high cost of life at the speed needed, and then the Generals had a job to do. If you need more fodder send more fodder etc. - if you have inferior death-trap machines you must send up until you can fix it, you do. Not good but war is war. Hindsight is a wonderful thing too, and right when you are in the thick of it, sometimes it's hard to step back and see the mistakes.

[catch 81]

I don't think "fault" comes into it .... Hindsight is a wonderful thing ....

 

Right It's too easy with hindsight to criticize.

[Bletchley 8]

The Index volume to the British official history (War in the Air) cntains a table showing monthly RFC/RAF hours flown and aircrew losses from July 1916 to July 1918, and from this you can get some idea of average RFC life expectancy. The figures for April 1917, for example (the lowest recorded) are 29,500 hours for 316 losses: or an average life expectancy of 91 hours. If we assume an average of just one or two patrols a day, at about two hours per patrol, this works out at (very roughly) 22-45 days, adding in around 33% for days grounded for poor weather or other reasons, and that gives you a figure of 1-2 months at the Front. The average life expectancy for 1917 as a whole was 175 hours - which works out at about 2-4 months. A 'tour' at the Front, for a RFC/RAF scout pilot, was about 6-9 months, followed by Home Establishment.

 

Bletchley

[Wels 2]

Hello,

 

a lot of records are missing, especially on the german side - some have been burnt by accident or intentionally, by own members of the German Air Service, or the general war management, some were locked in the eastern socialist part of Germany until 1989, and only slowly surface now in the united "Bundesarchiv", but remember some also have been brought to England - and will only be available in 2018, if ever (the 100 years formula, for not unnecessarily upsetting anyone especially when it comes to war propaganda ahem).

 

It seems that the german training took longer, and was more thorough - sources talk about 3 to 6 months at least, including high altitude flights with barographs for evidence, there had to be night flights absolved, especially starts and landing at night, and a lot of technical training and navigation, and meteorology.

 

As i recently read in the "Neumann", a german pilot had to fly one year in a two-seater as observer, before being allowed to fly a single fighter plane. Before becoming a fighter pilot, von Richthofen served with the BAO or so i think, flying with lumbering AEG G.IIIs, as a gunner/observer.

I somehow doubted that towards the end of the war, but there is indeed no source that states anything else, not even in the last months of the war (sometimes it even looks as if the training became more thorough in the end, maybe based on war experience). When additionally thinking about the use of parachutes (and allowance (sic!) to use it), it somehow looks as if the lives of the pilot were also considered to be very valuable, by the GAS -which is probably also due to the long-term training of the pilots - if you only look at "return on investment".

 

Commanders of airships were trained even more thoroughly, with additional meteorolgy, and crew-commanding abilities, but there were a mere 200 of them in all, for the appx. 100 airships built during the war. Mr. Bockholt, the commander of the Africa-Zeppelin was only chosen because he was one of the least trained commanders, for he would then stay in Africa, and the FdL Strasser did not want to lose an experienced north sea airship commander. But then Bockholt also was a daredevil, who had captured the british sailing freighter "Victoria" by landing beside it, and dropping a prize crew, when being a commander of airship L 33 ... sorry for OT

 

Greetings,

Catfish

Edited February 24, 2010 by Wels

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

And yet..they still got their asses kicked!...unbelievable!..perhaps their lack of fatalities was due to them running away most of the time?

[Wels 2]

Hello,

 

And yet..they still got their asses kicked!...unbelievable!..perhaps their lack of fatalities was due to them running away most of the time?

 

Ahaa right - you know when they were running away in an eastern direction they usually overrevved their engines in panic, and fell all down by themselves ... unless they finally arrived at the eastern front and frightened the russian flyers to death.

Someone HAD to shoot them down, but certainly ONLY out of of numerical superiority. You sure know Germany has never lost any war. In theory.

 

What i meant was certainly that also the fatality lists are either not all accessible or missing, for whatever reason - so it is hard to paint an overall picture.

 

A bit more seroius:

1. I have indeed no clue how the training of british, canadian, US or french pilots was - let alone from other nationalities, from any other country, or colony.

 

2. For what i read the single-seater scouts of Germany were indeed mostly above the front, or their own side - but you indeed need 3 times the force to successfully attack someone, and the whole purpose and policy of the German Air Service was to shoot down enemy reconnaissance planes, at least at that time.

At the beginning german planes were explicitly forbidden to cross the lines, for not letting the interruptor gear falling in Entente hands in case of an emergency landing, but this changed later in 1916.

It is not true that german single seaters never crossed the lines, this is an aerodrome myth. They attacked enemy aerodromes, they followed enemy flights across the border, and the ground-fighters like from the Schlastas did their own attacks close to the ground, strafing trenches. Not to speak about german recconnaisance planes, bombers and Zeppelins. But it must have been hard to fight against an enemy with better resources, technically, and human - and at two frontlines.

The german idea of aerial warfare was not that much developed - they used low-flying planes during army ground attacks for support, but mostly not otherwise.

 

When i think of how i "fly" in OFF, i usually try to keep on "my" side - and IF i have to cross the trenches, i get the hell out of there asap, after the mission goal is accomplished - or not

 

Greetings,

Catfish

Edited February 24, 2010 by Wels

[Olham 164]

Catch: I have far more regard for the Allied pilots and aces who did it very tough in comparison

with the pampered (and may I add perhaps a touch too arrogant) German air force that didn't

believe the unbelievable could happen. Their loss.

 

Catch, I have great respect for the aviators on both sides, because they both had to fly

under often very bad conditions. The German pilots were anything but pampered; they

often had to move alot, and they had only tents instead of hangars, etc. Their number was

far less than the Entente pilots. Later in the war, they had to make do with limited supplies

etc. etc.

When you think about the size of Germany in comparison to France plus England plus

Canada (which contributed great pilots by the way) plus Australia - then you see, that

their loss had to be inescapeable.

Regarded in that light, it is an immense achievement, that they could hold most of the

worlds airforces at bay for so long. And still, they weren't even beaten in the field, but

surrendered due to political decisions in Germany.

I don't know, were you see 'arrogance' in their fight. Arrogance can be found in the leader-

ship; but then on all sides.

I regard it as arrogant and naive to think in terms of "the good side" and "the bad side".

In most wars, there are no such sides.

 

[Creaghorn 10]

Catch: I have far more regard for the Allied pilots and aces who did it very tough in comparison

with the pampered (and may I add perhaps a touch too arrogant) German air force that didn't

believe the unbelievable could happen. Their loss.

 

Catch, I have great respect for the aviators on both sides, because they both had to fly

under often very bad conditions. The German pilots were anything but pampered; they

often had to move alot, and they had only tents instead of hangars, etc. Their number was

far less than the Entente pilots. Later in the war, they had to make do with limited supplies

etc. etc.

When you think about the size of Germany in comparison to France plus England plus

Canada (which contributed great pilots by the way) plus Australia - then you see, that

their loss had to be inescapeable.

Regarded in that light, it is an immense achievement, that they could hold most of the

worlds airforces at bay for so long. And still, they weren't even beaten in the field, but

surrendered due to political decisions in Germany.

I don't know, were you see 'arrogance' in their fight. Arrogance can be found in the leader-

ship; but then on all sides.

I regard it as arrogant and naive to think in terms of "the good side" and "the bad side".

In most wars, there are no such sides.

 

 

 

and for german pilots in both world wars, they fought until death or armictice, no rotation back to the desk after 6 months or something like that.

[Hasse Wind 46]

You can of course use many words to describe the German aviators of WW1, but pampered shouldn't be one of those words. It insults the memory of those men who fought and died in the Great War on German side of the lines.

 

No frontline pilot of any air force who participated in the war could have had very easy times, especially in the final phases when fighting became truly fierce, least of all Germans, who were outnumbered, undersupplied (lack of rubber for example meant that they couldn't always have proper tires on their wheels, something the Entente pilots never had to experience) and had to fight against a growing number of enemies.

[Wels 2]

Hello,

not to wake up this thread again ahem, only a correction:

Bockholt captured the Bark "Royal", not "Victoria" - and it was with the L 23, not L 33.

Unfortunately could not edit/change my old post further north.

Sorry and greetings,

Catfish