Two on Twenty

[rammjaeger]

>>Could the use of parachutes be the cause of so few Jasta casualties in these combats?<<

jasta, I think the answer is no.

There were not many parachutes in use in early May 1918 and until the end of the war not all German aviators got one. The parachutes failed very often. Therefore the German pilots had not so many trust to the device and tried to avoid jumping until the last moment. Often the chutes got bullet damage or fire damage in air combat and the pilots fell to their death. Before my PC-crash I had a list of ca 70 jumping German pilots, at least 1/3 did not survive their parachute jumps.

Additional a massive use of parachutes should lead to any remark in records, post-war books or other sources. The first known jump of a German single seater pilot is recorded not earlier than 21 May, the next for 1 June. Both pilots died. I am convinced that there were earlier jumps but very seldom.

VBR
Hannes

[rammjaeger]

jasta,
another important fact concerning the use of parachutes: Atkey´s combat report shows no remark about parachutes. If the DH4-crews were really (?) able to see aircraft crashing despite of a swirling dogfight than they should have seen the parachutes as well because the latter opened fast and were sinking slower than an aircraft goes down.

Graeme was so friendly to suppy an overview about the claims and air activity of the British Air Force that day (not only for the Arras-region as some could conclude). Atkey and colleagues were responsible for ca 50% of British claims against aircraft that day. In consideration of the obvious confusion we should check as well the possibility that Atkey & Co were involved in action against German twoseaters that day. It is not very likely but should be checked (but that is not my turn today – I leave for a birtday party on this sunny day).

Greame, if you are accidently falling again about material or names concerning the change in policy concerning the OOC´s than I would enjoy to get a little information.

VBR
Hannes

[Graeme]

Jasta: I would agree with Hannes; balloon observers had been using parachutes for a couple of years but their use was still worthy of mention in combat reports and the Communiques. If memory serves me correct, the first mention in the RAF Communiques of the use of parachutes by a German pilot was 27 June 1918 when Capt E B Drake shot down Ltn Steinbrecher of Jasta 46 (I'll have to check on this).

Hannes: I too have been enjoying the fine weather and have been visiting a friend who lives in Biggin Hill. In two weeks’ I shall again be in his back garden, having a barbecue and getting a good view of the International Air Display, free of charge!

It is difficult to pinpoint a date when Out of control claims began to be omitted from the RFC and RAF Communiques since they did not suddenly disappear and a number were still reported as late as October 1918.

As part of the process to identify the source of each entry in the database I am compiling, I have been reviewing the victory claims by the squadrons of 10 Brigade, especially the claims by the two Australian Flying Corps scout squadrons. A number of claims by these two units, and those of the RAF under the Brigade’s command, are shown as “driven down” yet are listed elsewhere (particularly in Above The Trenches) as “out of control”. So I fear that some more work is required to resolve this anomaly.

I expect that by the time I've got the database "perfect" there will be nobody left who's interested!

Graeme

[wings]

According to a Journal article, Vzfw. Weimar, Jasta 56, used a parachute on April 1 and landed in British lines, POW. I agree that parachutes were not used very often.

[rammjaeger]

jasta,
I think there were some doubts or discussions about this 1 April date. TJP spoke about a FTL near Gontelles and Weimars aircraft got G-number 159. Only one thing can be o.k. - either FTL or parachute jump. Or did he land and jumped after that?

Graeme,
Biggin Hill must have been a niece show too!
I hope you get your data base "perfect" before all of us "give in their spoons" as we say.
I am very interested in Steinbrecher, a Dresden-born pilot. Do you have details from the combat report of Drake?

[Graeme]

Jasta: RAF Communique number 1 says "Lt W J A Duncan, 60 Sqn, dived on an EA which was apparently firing at our troops; he followed the EA, keeping on its tail, and then it landed in our lines in the vicinity of Gentelles. Lt Duncan also landed and found the German pilot wounded in the back." No mention of Weimar using a parachute.

Hannes: I'll see if I have any more information on Drake's victory. Must dash, it's time for work.

Graeme

I just wondered how clear you could see a "crash" from 15.000 feet anyway, even if not involved into combat. I rememer that when I looked down from any noteable high smaller details get blurred pretty fast.

Is there a chance that exploding heavy artillery shells could be confused with the impact of a crashing plane?

[rammjaeger]

Axel,

the confusion of crashes with explosions caused by artillery and mines in ground combats happened all the time.

In WWII the air battle over Kursk is said to have resulted in extremly high overclaiming because of the frantic ground battle. It is also claimed the overclaiming increased rapidly with good weather because the pilots saw more often explosions on the ground which they attributed to their own ("defeated") opponents.

I believe many (most?) pilots involved in air battles in high or only middle altitudes did never see the opponent crash - despite reporting the opposite. They assumed a crash after observing an uncontrolled long dive, the loss of important parts of the hostile aircraft, falling crew members or similar observations.

It would be interesting to know more about the altitude of the Atkey-fight (did I miss that?) and the reports about ground battles in the sector.

VBR
Hannes

[Darryl]

Hi Hannes

Re Drake, 27th June 1918
The text of the CITAR (skipping the obvious prologue of time/place etc) reads:


"I engaged 7 Phalz (sic) Scouts over Warfusee which were flying at 16000ft. I attacked one and fired 100 rounds at very close range. I then lost sight of this E.A. on being attacked
by two others. I succeeded in shaking these off at 10000 feet and looking round saw an E.A. burst into flames at 1000 feet and crash in flames."


Of course we both know that this could have been any aircraft in the area......


So did his C.O, as it happens. Andrews had been around a long time. He saw fit to add the following to the bottom of the report:


"I consider this must have been the F.E.A attacked by Captain Drake, UNLESS ANOTHER SQUADRON CLAIM TO HAVE SHOT DOWN AN E.A at this time and place" (my emphasis)


It seems that it was not the whole RFC/RAF/RNAS who held the blind faith that seeing is believing in airfighting. (if you will forgive the oxymoronic turn of phrase*G*)


I would like to discuss your last post in reply to mine, but alas, time is short tonight. I'll email you later

very best regards

Darryl

Thanks everyone for the posts and comments.
So we have no german flyers dying this day?

To me, it looks like this incident and no record in it on the german side shows that german record losses are not infailable. I suppose it's possible they counted to many flammers...but really a flammer should be pretty easy to distinguish from others. I could easily see the destroyed a/c's pilots surviving. But with at least (2?) flammers i would think someone got killed in this action.

Oh well, all very interesting posts, great thread this turned out anyway.