P4 - most desirable improvements

[Hasse Wind 46]

Book titles? Okay.

 

Over Flanders Fields, or There and Back Again.

[Rugbyfan1972 1]

I would like to see the difference in the flight model between the AI and player aircraft addressed, I feel it is unrealistic that for instance while flying an albatros and fighting dh2's the dh2's are able to climb and zoom far better than the albatros, but when it is reversed, i.e. I am flying a dh2 and fighting albatri, the albatri is far better than the dh2.

 

While I realise this may be in some part down to pilot ability (me). It is readily evident with all the aircraft,

 

I also know from other posts that the pilots weight in the player aircraft is modelled as (I think) 185-200lbs, whereas in the ai aircraft it is about 120-140lbs, that is a difference of a minimum of 45lbs or to put it in british terms 3 stone 3 lbs and a maximum of 80lbs or 5 stone 10lbs.

[Dej 17]

If we're to borrow from that genre, HW, I think 'Over Flanders Fields - The Return of the King' is a better refelction of the esteem in which we hold this sim!

[+elephant 36]

I'd like to see too, player-AI FM equality...as Rugbyfan is suggesting.

I'd also, like to make a suggestion on a minor, more eye kandy than serious, matter.

I remember in CFS3, that there was a possibility that the parachute would not open and there was a seperate animation and unique screaming sound, for that!

Can't this animation only be linked to the "jumpers", than the invisible parachute that it is now used?

Moreover, can proper bail out option, (with increased possibility of failure), be implemented to the German side from April'18 and on? Or bail out animation added to the balloon crews and possibility for winched down baloons?

 

 

 

OK, I'm stopping...I start dreaming...

[33LIMA 972]

I would like to see the difference in the flight model between the AI and player aircraft addressed, I feel it is unrealistic that for instance while flying an albatros and fighting dh2's the dh2's are able to climb and zoom far better than the albatros, but when it is reversed, i.e. I am flying a dh2 and fighting albatri, the albatri is far better than the dh2.

 

While I realise this may be in some part down to pilot ability (me). It is readily evident with all the aircraft,

 

I also know from other posts that the pilots weight in the player aircraft is modelled as (I think) 185-200lbs, whereas in the ai aircraft it is about 120-140lbs, that is a difference of a minimum of 45lbs or to put it in british terms 3 stone 3 lbs and a maximum of 80lbs or 5 stone 10lbs.

 

+101 to that! This is a biggie.

 

I remember a debate on this in some CFS3 forum, where the explanation - I think it was from one of the 1% designers, or someone else who knew what he was talking about - was that the AI flew the planes at their unladen weights, mainly ignoring ammo and fuel loads. There is also a more recent ref to this here by poster Greycap:

 

http://www.sim-outho...aircrafts-setup

 

In CFS3 I found that an add-on player-flown Hurricane could not turn with an add-on AI Bf110 which was just ridiculous. I remember one response was 'I don't mind because I like my AI more challenging'. Well, my answer to that is, if you are happy with AI planes that can just inherently fly better than the real ones (or the players) you might as well just fly Crimson Skies or Wings of War and forget about serious sims. And a sim which works that way is really undermining its claim to be one, another nail in the CFS3 coffin, at least as a dog-fighting sim. And dog-fighting is much more important to OFF than to CFS3.

 

Unless OFF has already done something about this, or it's an urban myth, then I think this seriously needs tackled.

 

The obvious ways are either to 'reprogram' the AI to take account of loads (probably hard) or to provide AI-only planes with, say, at least half the fuel and ammo loads added into their unladen weight. I tried this with a CFS3 Bf110 and it worked a treat, from what I could tell. Of course the campaign files (technology trees) would also need to be edited to specify AI planes as default squadron kit - or whatever it is needs done to make them appear in campaigns as well as QC.

 

I might have a go at a P3 mod myself, but my question for the OFF devs would be - has anything been done already in OFF to redress the reported ability of the AI to fly at unladen weights?

 

I suspect not, as I have seen other such experiences reported - like (IIRC) Uncleal's statement about AI climbing without loss of speed. And my own experience suggests the AI can be a bit too handy at 'energy management' which suggests this factor may indeed be the culprit..

Edited July 16, 2011 by 33LIMA

[+Polovski 460]

Wo steady on, one issue does not crash and burn a whole sim wow. There's a whole lot more than that.

 

However to KILL this one Yes one new feature in P4 we added that has not been mentioned yet is AI using weight. (This is not a "fix" by the way as it was not broken, just the way it was in CFS3).

 

Answered like this the features list comes out in tiny dribs and drabs and gets lost in all the negative stuff anyway - until a features list is published could you hold on please and all will be revealed.

 

Phase 4 will be a whole different ball game. It is already designed and well along development and seriously different in many areas.

 

We are well aware of what is needed or can or cannot be done at this stage so just hang in there please.

[33LIMA 972]

I was asking if this factor has been 'fixed' (or dispelled as an urban myth) - meaning in P3, not P4, because I was considering modding P3 for myself - no mean task in view of the many 'doubles' of planes for starters, tho worthwhile as you have to sacrifice personal skins to get the ability to cut your fuel load to even begin to 'level the playing field'.

 

So, it is still a factor, then.

 

The uneven-ness of said field can be seen from just one plane - take the N.17 - it's empty weight in the .cfg file (taking N.17 AC4 as an example) is 825 (lb) and it's gross is 1280 so even allowing for some reduction from climbing up and cruising to the combat zone, the AI-flown version gets a pretty big increase in power-to-weight ratio from flying 'empty', if, as it appears, that's what it's been doing. Especially if you're flying with a full fuel load every time (eg in HitR with skin selection chosen instead of fuel management). No wonder your own AI wingmen, flying the same plane, can do things you can't, regardeless of how careful you are.

 

This is a big thing for me as well as some others.

 

Each to his own, but on reflection, I think the best thing to do for those of us who are concerned about this - assuming a way isn't found to enable skin choice and fuel load management concurrently - is for HitR flyers to give up on skin selection, and to enable and use, every flight, the fuel management facility, to select a modest fuel load, optimised for the mission. And for BH&H-only flyers also to use it as a matter of course, to close the gap with the AI.

 

I for one always use the 'alternative mission' option to generate a short flight in preference to a longer one and I in future I will combine this with selecting a realistic fuel load. I will also beware of engaging enemy scouts early on in any longer flight, even if flying at less than 100% fuel.

 

Of course it's excellent news that this is being dealt with for P4; just shows, as others have said, that you guys are very well aware of what needs done, and can be expected to tackle it, within practical limits of course.

 

I have equal confidence you will see/have seen the benefits of a DH4 as well

 

Waiting out, for the features list.

Edited July 16, 2011 by 33LIMA

[TSmoke 2]

It is good to hear that the AI issue is being looked at.

 

Personally it doesn't bother me to much and the AI is fairly dumb and is easily beaten even with their huge advantage.

 

My only wish is small but probably a pain in the butt . A working mirror on the Noops would be nice.

 

Also a question, seeing as how the SE5's have a Lewis and a Vickers gun are they selectable or are both guns always fired at the same time. Never have made it in a campaign far enough to get one. I always start with a very early date.

 

Also regarding the Lewis and Vickers guns. Why does it feel that the Lewis hits so much harder that the Vickers? Is it due to the synchronization of the Vickers thus it would have a lower rate of fire?

 

Love the sim and all the effort that OBD has put into it from the very beginning, nothing like taking a sow's ear and turning it into a silk purse. Thanks for all your efforts.

[+Polovski 460]

AI isn't dumb on aggressive mode it's pretty good especially vet/ace but I doubt many AI in sims out there, flying with all the same FM rules etc is as good as human with 1000s of hours sim flying.

 

As I said above, everyone has pet hates, concerns etc, I'm going to stop answering every query (reasons in my above post). Guys please wait for feature list.

Also it's takes a lot of our time answering individual requirements and not working on P4.

 

Yes Lewis was used for various good reasons, one is it isn't slowed by a prop in the way and can fire full rate.

[Hellshade 110]

Well thank God for not answering P4 features & fixes questions anymore. Christmas is no fun if you've already unwrapped every present 1 bit at a time for 6 months prior. I'm more than happy to get the occassional small slew of pics that doesn't even show us anything we haven't really seen before. In fact I think I'd prefer pics, that way I can just dream about the possibilities! Winder posted somewhere to keep watching the forums because they'd be listing some of the features soon. As far as I'm concerned, "soon" is anytime before Christmas of 2011. My credit card is at the ready!

 

Thank you OBD for putting up with your rabid fan base (myself included) while you advance the WWI flight sim market.

 

Hellshade

[+Polovski 460]

Thanks Hellshade back to work :)

[Flyby PC 23]

I'm with Hellshade. I'm happy too. I'm not even sure I want to read the features list when it does come out, I'll be happy to explore what's changed for myself.

 

I know about AI planes climbing away from you, but I can still nail one now and again, but I've been getting used to that since CFS3. Once you transfer some of the lead from your aircraft into his, you even up the weight difference and pretty soon he's not so sprightly anyway. (Said in jest chaps, I respect your likes and dislikes, but this issue doesn't kill my immersion to the extent it does yours).

 

My bigger gripe about the AI, -( no Pol, it's not a request or requested improvement), is the manner in which they perform in formation. Enter a fight and straightaway it's every man for himself. There's no tactical co-ordination between aircraft, neither in defense or attack, and your wingman is there in name only. He won't actually do the things a real wingman would do, nor even attempt to fly in a position to look after you. I've been flying sims for ages it seems, but I still don't know where my wingman should actually be flying relative to me and vice versa. Should he be mimicking my manouvres or hanging back? I don't know. Then there are the defensive tactics to adopt flying in circles covering each other for example, or simply changing formation in flight. You'll never see a flight of AI pilots doing this because there isn't the means to make them do it. And then of course is the judgement involved in adopting that tactic when it's appropriate. Doing it all the time might be worse than not doing it all. It's all mightily complicated. We've all seen the classic Hollywood sequence of planes banking over to dive onto a target one after another. It looks awesome, but you can't do it. It harks back to CFS3, and the constant criticism that for a Combat flight sim it paid very little attention to the mechanisms of tactical combat. A bomber pilot was trained to corkscew when attacked, so why don't they do it when you attack them? They don't react like a bomber really would. I've read the Flying Circus would also pounce on the same target one after another, but there's not that level of Ai to Ai co-ordination to see it happen in the SIm.

 

I'm not saying the AI weight thing isn't an issue, and if it can be remodelled to be better then that's excellent news, but I like to enjoy those parts of my flight which do work well and suspend my disbelief that I'm actually flying in combat in 1917. Would my perception of the enemy's capacity be so detailed if I was frozen stiff and constantly trying to watch him in 100mph headwind? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. You might even argue that the flight Simulator is actually doing it's job because your mind has developed some spacial awareness and can recognise where the simulated physics of flight is beginning break down.

 

For me, the flight seems more or less believeable give or take. But the combat? No. I know air combat was chaotic, but the chaos came from people trying to do what they'd been trained to do with lethal distractions all around. Even in chaos, there would still be a level of tactical awareness, if only the pack instinct to look after each other.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Flyby PC

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

A nice lively discussion going here Gents, it's proof of how much folks are invested in this fine sim. Flyby, to your comment above about how the AI perfom in a fight, that is about how it should be from the many accounts I've read by flyers who were there. The tactics you mention did not come along to any extent until after WWI. Apart from the formation flying done enroute, it really did boil down to more or less an "every man for himself" melee. I don't recall seeing the term 'wingman' in any of the first-hand accounts of the day, only mention along the lines of "so-and-so was flying my portside wing that day". New lads were generally told to stay high and watch the fight rather than joining in, and there are many tales of the more senior pilots jumping in to brush an EA of a new fellow's six. Apart from that, no real wingman tactics of any kind in the Great War, at least none that I've ever seen eluded to.

 

Lou

 

.

[33LIMA 972]

I remember (re-?)reading recently an account of the loss of one of the German aces - Kurt Wolf maybe - where he went up with another experienced pilot on the mission he (the ace) was shot down and killed. The way the survivor recounts it, he clearly sees it as being his role to protect his leader's tail and he is much aggrieved when he is distracted by having to defend himself and the leader gets shot down.

 

But in general, from all the many accounts I've read, I don't think we can read back into WW1 anything like the later concepts of wingmen and planes fighting in basic pairs, which is generally credited as a Luftwaffe Condor Legion innovation. In WW2 the RAF started off flying 3-plane vics and if you have ever read the contemporary RAF 'Manual of Air Tactics' from what I remember anyway, there is nothing like wingman tactics, just flight and section tactics, mainly for attacking bombers. Likewise the Japanese (Navy, probably Army too) flew in vics and there was little concept of 'finger four' tactics.

 

In WW1, with no radios, unreliable and low-powered engines, and inexperienced pilots even in the better units, they seemed to have had enough trouble flying in the simplest of formations let alone changing them mid-flight, apart from those units who'd trained in it, doing a Lufberry (defensive) circle.

 

CFS3's very limited wingman commands actually suits WW1 reasonably well. I have certainly noticed my own wingman (number two might be a better description) come in behind and beside me when I hit the 'H' key.

 

The only limitations I'm particularly conscious of are the poor formation flying, the limited 2-seater defensive tactics and on the other side, my only real gripe and due a welcome change with P4, their ability to fly at unladen weight (in an account by Erwin Boehme of a fight with 84 Sqn SE's in Oct '17, cited in Osprey's excellent 'SE5a -vs- Albatros DV', Boehme says 'Because I had used most of my fuel on my flight home, my aircraft was quite light and rose like Charlemagne').' I'm very glad P4 is gonna even this out a bit.

 

Apart from the above mostly minor limitations, I quite like the AI in HitR as it is now, complete with the facilities to vary gun accuracy. Players of the other 'big name' sims would have given their right arms to have as much as we have now, let alone what's coming in P4. I well remember the AI in P2 and was thoroughly pleased with how well it had come on with P3 and how much more convincing the single seaters in particular flew in dogfights.I just flew a Jasta 2 mission, cloud was hitting my FPS and making tracking targets hard (Sopwith Triplanes) but it was very satisfying to watch how my squad mates split up and went after the Tripes. The only thing was, taking no chances, before combat was joined I opened the TAC/radar, and handed out targets with a series of 'tab' and 'A' commands; I'm not sure whether they would have engaged without that, or how they would have reacted to 'AAA' which in CFS2 anyway IIRC, was a sort of a 'general attack' command; or maybe it was just one 'A' with no target selected, must look that up.

Edited July 17, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Hellshade 110]

but I still don't know where my wingman should actually be flying relative to me and vice versa. Should he be mimicking my manouvres or hanging back?

 

With the deepest respect to both Flyby and the OBD software team...there's no way in hell anyone is going to program an AI wingman that mimics how I fly in combat. It just isn't going to happen, especially in a pup or triplane. I don't think the technology exists to write that type of code yet, and I've yet to see it happen in ANY sim, regardless of the engine the developers are using. So I try to look at it like this. Since I'm always flight leader, I see myself as the experienced flyer and it's my job to look after the pilots in my flight.

 

In fact since I've been running Campaign missions so much lately (thanks HPW for your DM / FM!), I've found that the best combat experience isn't about me trying to get as many kills as possible. It's about watching the furball and trying to save as many of my inexperienced and veteran pilots as I can. If I really want the most intense air combat experience I can get, trying to save lives is far more intense and gut wrenching that trying to take them. When I focus on keeping my wingmen alive, it's tremendously more satisfying when I can save them and even emotionally troubling when I fail. Seeing one of your 'boys' in trouble and trying to get there in time before the enemies gun can do their vicious work of snuffing out another life is pulse pounding for me. Of course I'll try to take down the hun, but if there's someone I have a chance to save it would be incredibly cold blooded of me to needlessly let a wingman die just to bump up my own score.

 

I might also add that there's great historical accuracy benefit to this as well. When you focus on keeping your wingmen alive it helps to reduce the number of kills that you get overtime to much more realistic levels. It's easy to add another kill to your tally once you've got an enemy aircraft smoking and he's running straight away from the fight as best he can. But would you still take the time to finish them off if you saw a real life friend in danger of losing his life? Or would you break off, let the hun go and try to have one less empty seat at the supper table that night? Imagine what your fellow squadron mates would think of you if they saw you could have saved one of your own but you chose to raise your score instead.

 

Hellshade

Edited July 17, 2011 by Hellshade

[Rickitycrate 10]

That's a wonderful approach to OFF Hellshade. From my experience it is most rewarding to approach the sim in terms of defence/preservation rather than offense. It may well be in keeping with the true motivations of the actual pilots of the day as well.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

The long and short of it is, you ain't gonna please everyone...that after all, is the road to hell...but from what I've seen, just in screenshots alone, warrants the purchase of P4.

 

I'm looking forward to the other enhancements, whatever they will be.

 

Though, from a selfish point of view, the new aircraft is a real plus for us 'hobby' skinners!

Edited July 17, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker

[+elephant 36]

The long and short of it is, you ain't gonna please everyone...that after all, is the road to hell...but from what I've seen, just in screenshots alone, warrants the purchase of P4.I'm looking forward to the other enhancements, whatever they will be.Though, from a selfish point of view, the new aircraft is a real plus for us 'hobby' skinners!

 

Exactly, and don't you forget the rest of us "hobby" skinners who are happy enough with revised editions of existing planes, (Albatrosse)...

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

If I have the time, I will see what I can do about adding a little weight to the AI aircraft. However, since this would be an FM change, the modded plane would not be able to display ace's skins--at least until OBD can find a solution for that.

 

Hellshade--that is exactly how I try to approach my campaigns--at least when I'm not testing something in QC!

[Dej 17]

.

 

A nice lively discussion going here Gents, it's proof of how much folks are invested in this fine sim. Flyby, to your comment above about how the AI perfom in a fight, that is about how it should be from the many accounts I've read by flyers who were there. The tactics you mention did not come along to any extent until after WWI. Apart from the formation flying done enroute, it really did boil down to more or less an "every man for himself" melee. I don't recall seeing the term 'wingman' in any of the first-hand accounts of the day, only mention along the lines of "so-and-so was flying my portside wing that day". New lads were generally told to stay high and watch the fight rather than joining in, and there are many tales of the more senior pilots jumping in to brush an EA of a new fellow's six. Apart from that, no real wingman tactics of any kind in the Great War, at least none that I've ever seen eluded to.

 

Lou

 

.

 

My reading backs up Lou’s statement, and a perusal of Norman Frank’s ‘Dog-Fight – Aerial Tactics of the Aces of WW1’ supports it also.

 

The concept of a wingman, as we understand it from WW2 onward, did not exist. Experienced flight leaders would watch out for the novices (as does Hellshade, and Lou and Olham follow this maxim also) but no one had the specific assignment to protect another’s tail. The RNAS experimented with defensive formations for bombers from mid 1916 onwards (commonly with a view to maximising fire cover whilst maintaining manoeuvrability should archie prove a little bit too accurate) and, later,the RFC adopted stepped tactical formations for bombers and escorts when these became common. Scout patrols on both sides used formations, vics at differing heights for example, but apart from that ‘follow the leader’ seems to have been as far as it went... and then only from 1917 after the ‘lone wolf’ days were definitely past. Indeed, Arthur Gould Lee relates an episode from one of his patrols at the Front where he was so intent on carrying out that very instruction that he failed to notice any of the enemy scouts with which his patrol became entangled!

 

However, the German Jastas do seem regularly to have adopted a tactic where, when finding themselves below an attacking enemy scout formation the rear section would break off, bank away and climb whilst the front section would continue on and then dive, drawing the enemy scouts down thereby allowing their fellows in the rear section to fall upon the pursuing enemy from above in their turn.

 

Once a dogfight began in earnest though it was, on both sides, ‘every man for himself’.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Dej

[Flyby PC 23]

I do understand that air combat was in it's infancy, but there would still be rules of engagement. Say for example during the Fokker scourge when the Germans could fire through their propellers, I'm in no doubt the allied pilots would at least speculate on how to fight and fly together to offset their disadvantage. And if a senior pilot was taking up a novice, I am in no doubt whatsoever he would have been told exactly what to do, if only to head for the deck as fast as possible and head for home.

 

Just re-emphasise, I may have been including OFF under the umbrella, but wasn't meaning anything specific to OFF, but a more general observation about simulating air combat. I know it is very complex, and difficult to compute. Essentially you need to create AI aircraft with self awareness, then make them act together looking after someone elses best interests. It's difficult enough getting a brain to do that.

 

There were rudimentary tactics in WW1, and I have read that the Flying circus would co-ordinate their attacks. I'm sure I've also read about FE's forming a circle to cover each others tail with their forward arcs of fire. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but however rudimentary, pilots new and old would still have some level of briefing on what to do, and that is a tactic. There are also stories of Jastas shepherding kills for their aces to claim. That's a tactic requiring co-ordination. Oswald Boelke, the "Father of Air Fighting Tactics" was killed in October 1916.

 

Furthermore, even in the absence of tactics, there would still be instincts. I don't believe real pilots would hang back if one of their number was in trouble. They would try to fly cover for him, and try to get closer if only to see what condition he's in. I've never seen an AI pilot respond to that stimulus, and you can press help me! help me! 'til the cows come home.

 

It's hard to describe what I mean. I'm tempted to say it's the difference between single player and multiplayer. In multiplayer, you can recognise pilots are people, and almost see that each plane is a thinking entity, and there's a vitality to the action which just isn't there in single player mode. You do things differently. You feel bad when when somebody is in trouble, but your confidence soars when know you're in action with somebody who's good flying beside you. And once you've flown with the same people for a few missions, you tend to know the score and get to know those in your squadron and your missions get more successful. And what's worse is if someone regular is suddenly not there, then it leaves a great big hole in the team.

 

I've never for an instant felt any humanity in any AI pilot, - no rage, no courage, no fear.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Flyby PC

[Olham 164]

Well, you mentioned Boelcke. He may have been the first to write down rules of engagement - the "Dicta Boelcke":

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke

 

Mannock also had written down his rules:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mannock#Mannock.27s_rules

[themightysrc 5]

Not quite way off topic, and linking back to my post about observers - has any two seater flyer here even returned to base with a dead/dying observer in the back seat? Does it ever happen in player campaigns?

[Flyby PC 23]

Thank Olham. I did know of Boelckes dictat, but my point was he died in 1916, but already by 1916 his tactical wisdom was recognised early on in the war. And regarding his advice for no two planes to attack the same target, you need to add 'at the same time'. I need to brush up my references, but I'm positive I've read that the Flying Circus would attack a squadron from higher altitude by first, leaving two or three aircraft as top cover in reserve, but then selecting their target, often a straggler or the extremity of a formation, and plunge down into their attack, line astern firing at the target as they passed. As each attacking plane followed through to overshoot, he would at once seek to use his momentum to recover altitude, with the planes following doing just the the same but recovering altitiude and formation. The poor target would be hit by 3 or 4 attacks in very quick succession and didn't stand much of a chance. And if the rest of flight wasn't paying attention, they may not even notice and the Jasta was already in position to repreat the same attack all over again. I'm sure I read this in the context of the Flying Circus, but I'll need to read a lot of stuff again to find the reference.

 

There's a difference between chaos and complete chaos. There's a modern expression that no plan of attack survives first contact with the enemy, - but knowing that expression is an act of training itself. The Parachute Regimental Motto is Utrinque Paratus - Ready for Anything. The plan might very well be in a state of chaos, but that's where the soldiers discipline, training, skill, experience, and will to win take over. I reckon even a novice pilot, in fact especially a novice pilot, would have been bored to tears with briefing after briefing on how to end an engagement and start running for safety. Whether he'd be able to do it is a different matter, but I'm positive he would know what to attempt.

 

Lifting a quote from one of your links:-

 

H. G. Clements of 74 Squadron wrote an account of Major Mick Mannock in 1981.

The fact that I am still alive is due to Mick's high standard of leadership and the strict discipline on which he insisted. We were all expected to follow and cover him as far as possible during an engagement and then to rejoin the formation as soon as that engagement was over. None of Mick's pilots would have dreamed of chasing off alone after the retreating enemy or any other such foolhardy act. He moulded us into a team, and because of his skilled leadership we became a highly efficient team. Our squadron leader said that Mannock was the most skilful patrol leader in World War I, which would account for the relatively few casualties in his flight team compared with the high number of enemy aircraft destroyed.

 

[33LIMA 972]

Mick Mannock (or that matter possibly also MvR) was outstanding by definition - because he was exceptional - and cannot be regarded as typical. in the level of instruction and mentoring he gave his pilots.

 

Instead you could just as easily cite the example of Arthur Gould Lee ('No Parachute') who joined 46 Sqn in (IIRC) May 1917, who, having gained extra flying time after a training accident, ended up more with more flying time than usual. He didn't get much in the way of training or encouragement from his flight commanders, indeed he recounts how one of them told him off for 'stunting' in another pilot's Pup, then asked him to explain how he'd flown the manoeuvre (the squadron having fairly soon before having converted to pups from Nieuport 2-seaters).

 

I was never in the Paras but I have been in the Army and there is only so much you can cover at briefings, in your 'Actions on' (pre-arranged drills to be initiated in particular circumstances). In any event, I don't think you can compare the approach of relatively modern professional soldiers, based on experience of two world wars and a lot of fighting in between, with what your average WW1 pilot would have got, in a discipline only a few years old and unrecognisable by 1917 from what it was at the start of the war.

 

I'm inclined to think that WW1 RFC & RAF flying instructor and (for the 6 weeks he lasted at the front before being shot down) DH4 combat pilot WE Johns was at the better end of the scale in the briefing he usually has Biggles giving his new pilots, I suspect it was probably nearer what the average new pilot got. So to complete the picture after the Boelcke Dicta and Mannock's golden rules, here's the Biggles Dicta:

 

'First of all, never cross the Lines alone under ten thousand feet - not yet, anyway. Never go more than a couple of miles over, unless you are with a formation.

 

Never go down after a Hun.

 

If you see a Hun looking like easy meat, make for home, and if that Hun fires a Very light, kick out your foot and slam the stick over as if somebody was already shooting at you.

 

Act first and think afterwards, otherwise you may not have time to act.

 

Never leave your formation on any account - you'll never get back into it if you do, unless it's your lucky day. The sky is full of Huns waiting to pile up their scores, and it's people like you that make it possible.

 

Keep your eyes peeled and never stop looking for one instant.

 

Watch the sun and never fly straight for more than two minutes at a time unless you can see what's up in the sun.Turn suddenly as if you've seen something - and you may see something.

 

Never mind Archie - it never hits anything.

 

Watch out for balloon cables if you have to come home under five thousand feet.

 

If a Hun gets on your tail, don't try and get away. Go for him. Try to bite him as if you were a mad dog; try to ram him, he'll get out of your way then.

 

Never turn if you're meeting a Hun head on; it isn't done.

 

Don't shoot outside 200 feet - it's a waste of ammunition.

 

Keep away from clouds, and, finally, keep away from balloons. It's suicide. If you want to commit suicide, do it here, because then someone else can have your bus.

 

If you see anything you don't understand, leave it alone; never let your curiosity get the better of you.

 

If I wave my hand above my head - make for home. That means everybody for himself.

 

If I shake my wings it means a Hun - I may go for it. If I do, you stay upstairs and watch me. If anything goes wrong, go home. When in doubt, go home - that's the motto.'

 

[biggles briefing new arrival Algy, before taking him up for his first flight near the Lines, in 'The Boob', from 'Biggles, Pioneer Air Fighter']

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited July 18, 2011 by 33LIMA