Nothing heroic about it

[Olham 164]

... 10 Bristol Fighters! If they were anything like their digital counterparts in OFF, I wouldn't go anywhere near them!

I bet, there were different pilots, like in the scouts. Those who could fly that "pig" like a fighter - yes, I think

they would have been like in OFF. And we WOULD have found it hard to attack them!

 

I had some good successes with wingmen cooperation. We always attack one craft with 3 Albatros,

while the rest of the wingmen is distracting the other Brisfits.

When my two helpers fire at the Bristol, I also attack, from a different angle, and with long range fire.

That way, I have brought several down. But how many times did they at least puncture my tank -

and it could have been my head! Yeah, very dangerous prey, indeed!

[Flyby PC 23]

I suppose another aspect of this chivalrous conduct towards each other could have been the opportunity to do it.

 

I mean, in the early months, the numbers of aircraft were relatively small, they were poorly armed, and anti aircraft artillery was poor. I suspect there would be days and conditions would occur when altitude put you out of harms way, and your dog fight would be one on one. I'm sure once your enemy was damaged, and the victory decided so to speak, it was quite possible to throttle back and assess the condition of your enemies aircraft, out of his firng line and in relative safety. If that enemy aircraft is the only realistic threat to your own aircraft, the best place to have him is right there in front of you. If you can see he's in trouble and fighting for his life, or even just out of ammo, he's no longer any threat to you, and there is every opportunity either to let him off the hook or deliver the coup de grace. The parallels with some medieval joust and all related protocols are there for all to see. I'm sure there was even a Japanese Zero in WW2 who peppered an American Bomber but failed to shoot it down, but once the Zero was out of ammo, and the bomber was clearly in a bad way, all animosity ended, and the Zero pilot pointed the stricken bomber towards home and kept him on the right heading as long as he could.

 

I suspect it was the early pace of the war itself which made things like that possible. As numbers of aircraft grew and got better armed, you wouldn't have the same 'safe' opportunities to throttle back and interact with your stricken target. As the danger to yourself grew, you simply wouldn't want to hang around playing games, but get the job done and get back home in one piece.

 

Freedom of choice is all about the threat level.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Flyby PC

[Olham 164]

Dej, jeeze - this is a side of you I've never seen before?

Well, maybe most of us must lay down the burden of gentlemanly conduct every now and then?

Who is Dick Emery?

 

Capitaine Vengeur, I have watched that video many times. It's quite well made - a bit too flashy, but okay.

Here it is for all who haven't seen it yet:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLXsNHVEdZk&feature=related

 

...and also the one about Werner Voss' last fight:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpxOJncVmw&feature=related

Edited February 25, 2011 by Olham

[von Baur 54]

The "chivalrous" nature of WWI aerial warfare has been overblown, that's been accepted by those who've looked more than superficially at the subject for some time now. The early days saw aircraft armed with little more than pistols (extremely limited range and accuracy, firing from an unstable platform at a target moving in an unpredictable manner), rifles (more accuracy and range than a pistol but harder to handle), shotguns (similar range to a pistol and increased chance of hitting something, but the more pellets in the load the less damage each can cause), bricks-flechettes-etc. (really?!? you expect to down anything with that other than by the sheerest luck?). Given all that, better to wave at the other guy and try not to piss him off. There were cases such as Guynemer/Udet in which one pilot let the other go whether through pity, respect or a moment of moral clarity but they were exceedingly rare. But the fourth estate, being what it is, played them up for the sake of sales. Propaganda machinery undoubtedly had something to do with the perpetuation of that myth, too, hyping (or even inventing) instances in which airmen from their side "gallantly" let a stricken opponent go. Similarly, the Old West walk-down (high-noon, town square faceoff) happened only once that is known and recorded. It was between Wild Bill Hicock and a man named Dave Tutt in Springfiled, Missouri in the mid 1860's. But thanx to dime novelists (and later, Hollywood) it's been portrayed as a regualr occurance in every town from St. Louis to San Francisco.

 

As to pilots attacking two-seaters being less courageous than those who shot down fighters, how many fighters can shoot back from almost any angle? McCudden pointed out in his book that by taking position below and directly behind a two-seater the gunner can't draw a bead on you. But his greatest success with that tactic came with the SE5, in which he could pull down on the top-wing gun thereby having a firing solution while flying straight and level. If you try that with a fixed gun you'll find yourself drifting up into the gunner's line of fire rather quickly. And unless you've got only one EA to contend with you'll also be vulnerable to one or more of his comrades at all times. This is why von Richtofen (as well as others, I'm sure) preached that when attacking two-seaters you always go for the man with the gun first.

 

 

To Dej:

That was a misunderstanding. Remember, the earliest accounts of Robin Hood were verbal. When it was written down they called her Maid Marion...should have been made Marion. What do you think kept his men so merry?

[JFM 18]

+1 to what von Baur wrote.

[Bullethead 12]

Not to mention the sheer impracticality of panyhose in the forest - have you seen that undergrowth?!! Honestly - more ladders than a fire-station, sweetie. And don't get me started on how many dead leaves a pair of four inch stilettos can spike up in half an hour!

 

:rofl:

 

On a related note, I'm building my next house out of sticker bushes, because they're indestructible. If you burn the underbrush out of the woods, the thorny vines survive. And they're thicker, stronger, and thornier than they were before the fire. Places you could walk through easily before become something WW1 trenchlines would have been proud of.

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there DIH,

.........."the Allied aces high preponderance of single-seater claims has to do with the dynamics of the air war and how it played out for the Germans."

Essentially, to be to the point, the Germans sent up their Scouts to shoot the two-seaters, and the Allies sent up their Scouts to shoot the Scouts, and the two-seaters. Given that the two-seaters would leave in a rush at the hint of trouble, and that they recon'd the Tactical Zone, they would then look to the Scouts for assistance. The Allies outnumbered the German's by a minimum of 3:1 in aircraft, which ultimately became a significant issue as technology and the reliance on recon and the tactical use of aircraft changed during the war.

Cheers,

British_eh

PS A good book that provides historical info and a pilots take, is P. Hart's - "Aces Falling", if you want something that isn't as dry as parchment paper to read :)

 

Edited February 26, 2011 by British_eh