July-Dec 1917

bristol scout · 8 July 2009, 03:03 PM

Hi James
Well, lets say from mid 1916 on an increasing basis--and certainly by 1918.

In the air with the Americans---well, given that there were quite a few Americans in the R.F.C., and some tried to stay with the British--and they, of course, were with the French--by mid 1918 the Americans were out to stake a place in history, and certainly by late 1918 were a force to be reckoned with. Not surprising when their leadership had great experience with both French and British doctrines, they managed to match R.A.F. aggressiveness--in a sort of French tactical set-up----Bombers did not do so well--only as a result of not using escorts at first (another lesson that needed to be re-learnt)!
Recon. squadrons and observation flew with high levels of aggressiveness---and all units across the board with extreme courage----As did the French, who i am not castigating out of hand, but lacked---across the board, that level of outright aggressive pursuit of the enemy that characterised British/Dominion---and towards the end American.

American ground forces fought with extreme courage--but, just like Britains 'new' armies in 1916----were really enthusiastic and fiercly brave amateurs. No country with a tiny peace-time proffessional Army can expand to millions in a short time without this painful--and sometimes ruinous fact that must be borne, as must the casualties incurred during the terrible learning curve, as must the odium that politicians and sometimes those who should Know better heap upon the Generals of such armies, who are themselves involved in that learning curve. How could they not be?
No doubt my feelings on this should not be, in any way, taken as the last word! Indeed my slightly flawed feelings of the Gallic race, as i keep pointing out, preclude and militate against objectivity here, in many things French!

Dave.

jsontag · 9 July 2009, 05:04 AM

Dave, you said some things I did not know and I thank you for that. So, from what you are saying, and I'm not taking anything away from the French, but the Americans were more aggressive in the air than the French?

Reading all of this in this topic, I really didn't know that the R.F.C. was an equal if not a bit better than the German Air Force. I'm new to World War I aviation, and most of the things I knew was how good the Germans were in the air. From waht I've been reading here and elsewhere it seems that from maybe mid-1916 onwards the R.F.C. and Dominion pilots were kicking some major ass. I never knew that they were changing and adopting new tactics and were using them more so than the German air force.

Thanks to everyone,

James

bristol scout · 10 July 2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsontag

Dave, you said some things I did not know and I thank you for that. So, from what you are saying, and I'm not taking anything away from the French, but the Americans were more aggressive in the air than the French?

Reading all of this in this topic, I really didn't know that the R.F.C. was an equal if not a bit better than the German Air Force. I'm new to World War I aviation, and most of the things I knew was how good the Germans were in the air. From waht I've been reading here and elsewhere it seems that from maybe mid-1916 onwards the R.F.C. and Dominion pilots were kicking some major ass. I never knew that they were changing and adopting new tactics and were using them more so than the German air force.

Thanks to everyone,

James

Hi James,

I'm at pains to remind you of my slight problem (but equally i try not to overdramitise it) Re. the French---and how that makes me somewhat less than ideal to believe without someone giving the other side of the coin.

For what it's worth i believe the Germans considered the R.F.C./R.A.F. a more dangerous foe than the French flying services. Was'nt it Richthofen who said that he preferred those "daring fellows the English, to those French tricksters" !
The Americans, as i said, to the best of my knowledge performed exactly as you would expect them to---valiantly--within the constraints of the 'learning curve' i mentioned.

I'm not sure if you could go much better than to re-visit Russ' posts 92/94/97, wherein he makes the point of the other view--by which i mean the view that does'nt assume that the allies went in abject fear of big bad German scout squadrons----certainly not British scout---and i have no reason to believe that Corps squadrons in B.E.'s R.E.'s Ack-W's did, either.

I am one who believes-----a point I made in a very early post in this thread, or the one that ran concurrently and with a similar base---that even in April 1917 morale came no where near being weakened--and to quote you a bit---Yes---some 'major arse kicking' did go on---but the simple and terrible thing that must be remembered is if two big arse kickers get to work on each other they are both going to have very sore arses before one gives in!

Therein is the logic of that war---and of nearly any war--and absolutely any war of huge industrialised nations fighting for survival----The American Civil war--First and Second World Wars.

Given something like parity in numbers, and equal technology---mass armies will inflict and sustain mass casualties to reach a result---it really is as simple as that.

My personal belief, for what it's worth, is that the German flying sevices forgot to an extent, that they were an adjunct of the Army, and that the British never forgot it.

But their is, always, other views ---and perhaps more balanced, and certainly more learned, than mine.

Dave.
Dave.

jsontag · 10 July 2009, 10:17 AM

Thank you Dave, you are a very learned man. You may not like the French, but you are not slamming them either. I hadn't heard that quote from Richtofen and it seems to me he respected the English pilots and didn't have much respect for the French pilots.

I'm going to revisit Russ' posts as you said.

James

bristol scout · 10 July 2009, 11:12 AM

Thanks James, 'though you are too kind. People like myself, even though i'm in my sixties and have been deeply interested in history and aeroplanes since a nipper, are only 'useful' plodders compared to the real experts here.

The saving grace, i suppose, is that in a real sense we are all learning all the time.

Cheers,
Dave.

jsontag · 10 July 2009, 11:16 AM

Dave, I'm 42 and I've been into World War II aviation since I was about 6 years old. I've learned a lot from you and others on here as I'm new to World War I aviation. Thank you,

James

R Gannon · 10 July 2009, 05:39 PM

jsontag

There are quite a number of quotes by well known German aces - Richthofen, Udet, Kroll, Janzen etc who all credit the British as a more dangerous opponet than the French. I'll dig them up and post them on this thread in near future.

Cheers Russ

Dan_San_Abbott · 10 July 2009, 06:33 PM

Hi jsontag:
In several of the German air histories, German units transferred from the British Front to the French Front, considered they were going on rest and relaction leave. The French Aviation Militaire was the largest Air Force in the European war, yet they had the fewest aces. There were a few tigers but a lot of pussy cats. They were not agressive. I have often wondered if the German Command knew about the French mutinies in early 1917. They appreared not to know about them. The Aviation Militaire did not have the aggressive leaders like the RFC and RAF. When the deck was stacked against them, The RFC did not back down, i.e. April and May of 1917. The losses experienced by the RFC in April 1917 were never exprienced in WW2.
What the Aviation Militaire did was to develope higher organizations, The Air Division, that no other service developed. The organization developed in te RFC and RAF were second and the German organization was third. A Geschwader was equal to a Battalion which would have been command by a Lt.Colonel, but in the Luftstreitkräfte was commanded by a Hauptmann, (Captain). A Kofl, should have been a Brigadier-General, but was a Captain., The German organization did not go further than the Kommandeur Der Flieger at Army Brigade level.
Blue skies,
Dan-san

jsontag · 11 July 2009, 06:15 AM

Russ and Dan-San, thank you both so very much. I never knew that about the French. I guess in a way it was the same in World War II, in that the RAF put up a hell of a fight, while we know what the French did.

bristol scout · 11 July 2009, 03:31 PM

The French in the later war fought a lost battle as they were beset by the ghosts of W.W.1. The British also went into that second round fighting the demon of mass casualties---a demon that was never properly exorcised---and it's baleful influence is with us still-----the myth of the lost generation.

" For 50 years the Great War has been the British wooden leg...the wooden leg legend runs like this---British casualties were so colossal that the national life was enfeebled by the absence of a 'lost generation'...........this wooden leg legend is historically absolute rubbish"

Corelli Barnett---the Sunday telegraph magazine 1968.

The British overcame the demon enough to stay the course---the French failed of course.

But even though British casualties were only a fraction of what they had been in W.W.1 the simple fact is that at no time in the later war did Britain face anything other than 'detachments' of the main enemy.

The war had terrible attritional battles just like W.W.1--but there names are Russian names----the main German army was in Russia.

Dave.