Establishment of Combat Tours of Duty

It has been written that the average life of an RFC combatant in April 1917 was on the order of a few weeks, so it seems unlikely that the concept of "some time away from the front" originated at this time, excepting those going away permanently. Apparently the high-scorers on both sides were wined, dined and given some time away from the front to be presented with their awards, and the wounded were given time to recuperate, but these seem to be the only ways one could get away from active duty.

Later in the war, with great numerical superiority, it appears as if the Commonwealth aviators were rotated in and out of combat. Is this the case? Considering that British command did not see fit to supply its airmen with parachutes, it seems difficult to believe that the troops were afforded the benefits of relief from active service.

Can anyone describe how and when this policy was instituted? Who's idea was it? How extensively was it implemented? Were pyschological and/or medical arguments used to support the policy? If a man survived whatever the required amount of time or number of missions to be afforded the opportunity to go home, what role was he likely to serve in the future? ---- one would think that the Corps would still have a use for him, if for nothing else, as strength in reserve.

The RFC had a standard policy, from early in the war, of a six-month tour of duty at the front. This tour was interrupted at the mid-way point by a fortnight's (two weeks) leave. Additional leave could be granted at the OC's discretion, notwithstanding medical leave.

The old saw about a pilot's lifespan being measured in weeks applies only to the period mid-March through early May 1917. I would imagine that survival rates were almost as low in spring 1918, but the overall median lifespan has to have been considerably higher.

The German air service never instigated a tour. Once posted, German aircrew served until a) the war ended; B) they were invalided; c) they were killed; or d) they were relieved for some non-medical reason.

As for when exactly the RFC instigated its six-month tour, I don't have the answer with me, but I'd be willing to bet it happened some time in 1915.

Should have read the whole message thoroughly before responding. RFC pilots who completed their tours were posted to Home Establishment. If they wished, they could do additional tours. Those who were considered suitable were assigned (sometimes against their will) to training duties as instructors. Some became administrators (A.D. Bell-Irving is an example). Some stayed at the Front as squadron leaders (remember that after mid-1917 RFC/RAF OCs were not supposed to fly over the lines).

Thanks for the details Michael.

Given the British policy of no parachutes for our boys, I wonder WHY British Command initiated the concept of a tour of duty specifically for aviators? Or did this apply to all conscripts?

In 1915, it is difficult to fathom that the "Boering" strategists would show favor to a group of subordinates whose value to King and country were largely unknown, and probably considered of less importance than just about any of the other types of soldiers and sailors. The only thought that came to mind is that possibly a fair number of the airmen showed signs recognized by the medicos that they were in need of some time away from action. From your response, it appears as if Command instituted the policy on their own accord. This is shocking and shows good judgement. Now about this parachute policy....

Life expectancy of an RFC pilot on the Western Front over the whole of the war was about 8 weeks. If a man could go through his first two months, he stood a greatly enhanced chance of seeing out his 'tour'.(Please note that this figure also includes accidents, etc...) Over the whole of 1917 this figure dropped to about 3 weeks due to the intense activity during this time period. From mid March through mid May 1917 this figure dropped to an average of 10 days. Rates for September 1918 were similar.

Mark wrote;
>I wonder WHY British Command initiated
>the concept of a tour of duty specifically
>for aviators?

The AFC had more training squadrons and flying schools than they had operational squadrons. To train a competant pilot in the latest fighting machines took time, skill and lots of resources. The Home Establishment pilots either took up Fighting Instructor positions, Flying Instructor positions or commanded training flights, squadrons or wings before going back to France. They were not only training positions for cadets but for administration and leadership as well as a rest from the stress of combat. As an example Lt Col Strange commanded a Training Wing before commanding an RAF Wing. I wonder if the AFC had got it's all AFC Wing in time if Watt would have commanded it.

The logistics behind an operational squadron are considerable, in the AFC for every flying position there were approximately 10 AFC ground positions, not including any AIF positions that were ground positions attached to, or working for the AFC, or the AIF Officers and servicement on the AFC HQ in the AIF.

Rob wrote;
>Life expectancy of an RFC pilot on the
>Western Front over the whole of the war
>was about 8 weeks.

I think that is far too low. 3 Sqn AFC which was a Corps squadron, averaged 20 weeks for Flying Officers including transfers, Home Establishment, Casualties and Losses. On Casualties and Losses alone IIRC it worked out to be around 40 weeks. I did it for the AFC Scout Squadrons too and the numbers were similar. It is in a previous thread somewhere.



cam
AFC - http://members.nbci.com/pointcook/

The RFC had a system well in place by 1917. I have gone through the officers records for 1, 29, 40, 41, 84, 201,201,210,213,204, and some others. From this a tour varied. If it included most of the winter 1917/81, it tended to be longer. For 84, I think Proctor was the last of the originals to go home on leave, Saunders was soon after, but he did not come back. Leave seemed to be after two to three months, and a tour could last 4 to 8 months depending on the health and nerves of the pilot. I have seen the one paragraph report from the wing doctor recommending Capt Camille Lagesse for Home establishment after 8 months, it says completely physically and mentally exhausted. I would surmise waking up screaming, not eating eytc would be taken into account, and off a pilot would go. The RFC/RAF might be heartless re parachutes but they new all about the value of having rotation of tours. NO different from the army. The RNAS in 1916-17 trended to keep the successful ones for longer, but most of their units were pulled out of the front at one time or another for a rest. The whole issue of this is something I am working on, and any relevant comments would be welcome.

Russell,

It seems to me that a study of the manner by which British command determined the policies that fed its meat-grinding war machine would be an interesting work. Bodies are always needed, desperately so in certain situations. One would think that forward thinking commanders should support any policy likely to enhance their mens prospects for survival, but many examples to the contrary have been demonstrated.

Some interesting questions to consider: To what extent was policy determined by success in battle? By what mechanism, if any, were the thoughts of fighting men and local commanders conveyed to and considered by higher levels of command?
Were things any different on the other side?

The RFC tour was established because, unlike ground troops, aircrew spent every day (in theory, at least) at the sharp end. Ground troops were rotated out of the trenches on a regular basis (I think it was as frequently as every couple of weeks, maybe even more frequently than that). An infantryman might spend a couple of years "at the front," but a significant proportion of that time was spent out of the battle zone.

Also, infantry didn't necessarily come into contact with the enemy on a daily basis. Aircrew did, if only when they met Archie. The airmen got to sleep in real beds (mostly) and eat properly cooked food (ditto), but that was considered small compensation for the increased risks they took on a day-to-day basis.