Empire Aces

[leo]

I am not as familiar as I ought to be with the aces of the UK and Empire Countries. How did the aces from the empire rank along side those of the mother country. It would seem that the pilots from Canada and Austrailia were quite effective.

[Vin]

Leo,

You can get a good idea of how the empire pilots went by looking at the lists kept at this site. My view is that the nationality of the pilot was not of much consequence. The significant factors were training, time and period at the front, type of aircraft, assigned tasks and quality of opposition. My impression is that it was more difficult to survive and prosper in 1916 and 1917 than in 1918. The RFC recruited empire pilots from a variety of sources, light horsemen, infantry, volunteers who were already pilot trained, in much the same way as bods from U K were recruited. Although some Canadians will disagree, I think it is a mistake to look at the country of origin of members of the RFC/RNAS/RAF. There was only one active non-RFC/RAF air force among the Empire countries, the AFC. As far as the Western Front was concerned, its 3 squadrons were only really active in 1918 and were very successful. I believe their success came from comparatively good training, access to quality aircraft, the Camel, SE 5A and Snipe and the fact that the Entente had aerial superiority during 1918.


Vin

By some estimates, fully a third of the aircrew in the RAF by the end of the war were Canadian. Sources I've seen suggest that Empire pilots were extremely highly regarded both for their quality and for their spirit. As Vin says, the training Empire pilots received had a lot to do with their perceived quality, at least in the crucial 1916 to mid-1917 period. (Once the Smith-Barry system had been introduced in the UK, the Empire RFC/RAF stations fell behind a bit until they too fully adopted Smith-Barry.)

The bottom line is that the Empire -- and Canada and Australia in particular -- supplied pilots all out of proportion to their population. There have been numerous attempts to explain just why Empire pilots were so good on an overall basis, but that's the subject of another thread entirely. (And I doubt we'll ever agree on a single reason anyway.)

Before we make too many sweeping statements about Commonwealth aircrew, we may have to dispose of some myths. One concerns the number of "colonials" actually in the flying services. I shall allow the Australians and New Zealanders to comment on their own numbers, but the numbers of "Canadians" (however defined) has been exaggerated. Appendic C of CANADAIAN AIRMEN AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR (S.F. Wise) notes that an "official" figure of 22,812 (quoted in the Memorial Chamber of the Peace Tower, Ottawa) simply does not stand up to analysis. The most generous figure that can be documented is 13,160 aircrew - of whom 6,904 are known to be Canadian, 1,736 are known to be non-Canadian (chiefly Americans enlisting in the British flying services via Canada) and 4,520 are of unknown origin. The figure can be pumped up to 20,613 by adding the 7,453 mechanics recruited in Canada (many of whom never left for overseas, being retained in Canada to service the RAF training programe here). I have also seen correspondence in which British authorities expressed concern in mid- to late-1918 about losing Canadians to newly-formed Canadian air services at home and overseas, but even the British estimated no more than 20-25 percent of their flying services were Canadian. A proportion of one-third being "non-British" might be entertained if we were dealing with the Empire/Commonwealth as a whole (i.e. lumping in the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Canadians, etc).

Though a Canadian nationalist, I also suspect claims about a special Canadian prowess in matters military. There may well have been a disproportionate number of "colonials" in the flying services (but not to the extent often cited) - and two good reasons come to mind. One is health (Canada and Australia had not yet been blighted by the industrial pollution which affected much of Britain). The other was the volunteer ethic - the "colonial" volunteer had not only joined an army, but had joined an army to fight at least one ocean away. This suggests a slightly more adventurous person than the volunteer in Britain. But coupled to this was the "immigrant" ethic. Thousands of "colonial" volunteers had, in fact, been born in Britain and had migrated abroad before the war. The migrant is, almost by definition, an adventurous and innovative person - the person who undertakes three adventures - first to migrate, then to enlist for a distant war, and finally to volunteer for an air force - is particularly unusual.

I'll weigh in here;

As to the numbers of Australians in the RFC, the British recruited 183 ( from 197 ) from the AIF in 1916. There were others that enlisted directly into the RNAS and the RFC as well ( another 200 maybe? ). Even with all those it still isnt many in comparison to how many thousands of pilots and observers there were in the RFC/RAF/RNAS.

The AFC by comparison had about 300 Officers. Once again hardly a huge number. Most of the 1 AFC pilots came from ther Lighthorse as did a large number of the pilots serving on the Western Front. If there is any correlation between effectiveness in the air and horseback skills it is probably in the AFC where you could look.

I like Hughs immigrant nations idea. Even today 40% of Australians were born in another country, it probably was about the same proportion for the AIF and AFC.

Russell probably has much more accurate numbers than I have on the Australians.

J.S. Bendroit a Canadian pilot who settled in Brisbane after the war apparently said of the training losses the British and Australians suffered were due to poor supervision of the trainee pilots when not flying. He contributed the Canadians having lower losses due to "rigorous physical training", "Foreign Legion type" discipline and careful classroom instruction. I dont know how true that is but Micheal is probably interested in it.



cam

[Vin]

Ah, Cam. This thread was too delicious for you to miss out on. I base my position on the training of the AFC pilots on the accounts of their training by both Cobby and Wright in comparison with the account of RFC training on this site, with other accounts I have seen, dimly remembered, and the horror stories of boys with 10 hours solo joining squadrons.

Wright commenced training in June 1917. He spent 8 weeks ( -v- 4 – 6 weeks for other RFC training) at Oxford. Dual flying training commenced in August and soloed after 3 ½ hours dual. There followed a mixture of dual and solo flights on a variety of aircraft until he had 20 hours plus until the end of September. He was then sent to scout and gunnery training courses and did not leave for France until the end of February, a total of 8 months training. When he arrived at 4AFC he continued training for another couple of weeks before his first operational sortie.

Assuming that this was typical, it strikes me a being pretty extensive preparation for combat.


Vin

Point about Canadian numbers well taken; I should have remembered that. (Though I recall Wise saying the DND records on WWI Canadian airmen were incomplete.) It nevertheless remains that Canadians served in the RFC/RAF in numbers out of proportion to the country's population.

As for physical quality, Wise also debunks the myth that Canadian aircrew were hearty, hardy outdoor types from the wilds of Canada or however it was that they were perceived in the UK. The vast majority of Canadian aircrew were from cities and large towns, and while it's true that Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver were nowhere near as polluted as London, Manchester or Liverpool, these were still industrial-age cities.

I doubt that any perceived qualitative advantage Canadians had was due to "rigourous physical training" or any form of discipline or supervision. The sources I've seen are pretty much unanimous in dismissing the physical drill the cadets received as both pointless and insulting. And if by chance Canadians training in Canada were less likely to get into trouble when not flying, this could be due to nothing more than the fact that camps like Borden were pretty much isolated. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Canadians in squadron service were more likely to be viewed as disciplinary problems, at least when compared with their more reserved UK counterparts.

My own opinion is that the superior training Canadians received in Canada prior to the end of summer 1917 is due mostly to their having a superior aircraft (Jenny as opposed to Farman Shorthorn) and having to deal with (marginally) less pressure to get candidates graduated and into squadrons.

>As for physical quality<

Probably about half/half with the Australians with most coming from Melbourne. As the LightHorse was recruited from heavily, it probably skews the country bloke more than other air forces.
Australia though in 1914-1918 was still agragarian, it wasnt until WWII that Australia got an industrial sector of any note. Unlike the US and Canada who got a real boost in industrial activity in the period, Australia remained based in agriculture. Melbourne as a city in Australia was not industrialized anywhere near the extent of the Norther Hemisphere sities.

The myth of Australian effectiveness though still follows the bushman. Even today when 75% of Australians live on the coast. It was no differant back then, if anything the ANZACs and Lighthorse helped cement the bush image into Australian military and civil myth.


>"rigourous physical training" or any form of discipline or supervision.<

If anything, the Australians in their memoirs have the greatest fondness for the commanders that allowed them freedom in the area of discipline so they could do their job. Watt and Williams seem to get mentioned in glowing terms always. Maybe it came from the Lighthorse again, as Joe Bull mentions how the Lighthorse were great to the "Coves" and an example to all services.

As to physical training, 1 AFC used to play a tonne of sport it seems. Including football, tennis, cricket, golf, and hockey. Sutherland mentions that Mustard didnt understand hockey and went round wielding his hockey stick like a bludgeon until noone would stay on the field with him.

>by chance Canadians training in Canada were less likely to get into trouble when not flying,<

Cobby mentions the British expecting him to be a trouble making Colonial. He also mentions he had a hard time living up to their idea of how troublesome a colonial could be.


>Canadians in squadron service were more likely to be viewed as disciplinary problems, at least when compared with their more reserved UK counterparts. <

Maybe cultures that favour independant thought and action transcribed well into the flying corps and aerial effectiveness. Be interesting to peg Canadian and Australian led squadrons against British led squadrons and look for differances.

>My own opinion is that the superior training Canadians received in Canada prior to the end of summer 1917 is due mostly to their having a superior aircraft<

The Australians had Boxkites and BE2's in Australia and later Jenny's. It had little impact though as most cadets were sent on to England or Egypt for furthur training so this has little bearing for Australians. Essentially they were trained the same as British pilots.

It would be interesting to know the New Zealand break down of numbers. As they are unusually small in number in the air.



cam

>Ah, Cam. This thread was too delicious for you to miss out on. <

lol


>accounts of their training by both Cobby and Wright <

Cobby was supposed to go across as part of 2 AFC but pranged his plane and body and missed out, having to wait for 4 AFC. IIRC ( am at work ) Wright missed out on going across to France in Autumn and due to the low need for pilots in winter, he got to fly another 3 months before joining 4 AFC.

I also think the training Wright went through was pretty typical for the RFC pilots of that time too, as the RFC still did much of the AFC training despite 1 Wing being set up in late 1917.

Others like Weingarth were trained in Australia on a Jennys and Caudrons, then went to Point Cook and then England where he received furthur instruction before joining 4 AFC. But his extra training didnt translate into extra victories.

Cobby by comparison to Weingarth received little to no instruction in Australia and went through the British training system in England. Yet that translated into lots of victories and a good WWI leader in the air.

But Taplin and Cole come to the Western Front from having learnt and flown in Egypt/Palestine and with better aircraft or more chances for combats start racking up scores.

Apart from the Mesopotamian Half Flight all AFC squadrons received further instructions in England. Even 1 AFC spent six weeks in England after arriving in Egypt for further training and instruction. Yet they too proved to be probably the most effective squadron in the theatre.

I am still unconvinced the Australians received any better training than the British in WWI. I think any differances are going to come with the culture the men came from, the culture in the squadrons and the leadership they flew under. The AFC for having two scout squadrons, one army squadron and one corps squadron produced an awful lot of over achievers.

Australia often bemoans its lack of leadership and chances for leadership in WWI, but I think a lot of the AFC over achieving can be attributed directly to the leadership at the squadron, flight and mess level. Men like Williams, Watt, Cobby, King, Phillipps, Murray-Jones, Sheldon etc.




cam

[Vin]

Cam

McClaughry is noticeably missing from your list of influential leaders. Hmm.

The AFC came into the war late, leaving aside 1AFC. The training its pilots recieved may have been available to blokes joining the RFC/RAF at that time too but there did not seem to be much of a rush to get the Australians to the front so up to 8 months training was possible. It seems to me that the success of the AFC can be down to a number of factors, including training, success being the ability to survive and to carry out assignments. As to why its units were more successful than other comparable RFC/RAF units, other than that the RFC/RAF blokes may have been rushed into squadrons during late 1917 where there did not seem to be the same hurry for the AFC blokes, I could only speculate and you may be right about cultural differences. I remain skeptical.


Vin