Kill Claims

Dear Boss:

One of the reasons I tend to view WW I claims as being more accurate than those submitted in WW II, is that the structure of most WW I machines was FAR more susceptible to bullet damage than those of WW II. Damaged wood structure would lose virtually all its resiliency and support once it was hit by a bullet and not only holed, but also splintered. Wood would rapidly split (especially under load) along the wood grain, and would also tend to lose its ability to hold screwed in fittings. Metal, even when badly damaged, would still retain resiliency, as long as significant shards remained attached.

Woodrow

[CodyPaul]

Hey Paolo,

Maybe so, but that doesn't always mean a structural failure would result. Many WW I aircraft returned heavily damaged, yet still flying. I believe you and I had a discussion elswhere about an aircraft recieving multiple hits and being brought down under control. And brought down because it was on fire at the time (the observer standing on the wing reaching into the cockpit to fly the plane, a VC action)

Anyway there are also other matters to consider. Out of Contols (OOC's) for instance. If the plane was seen to go down out of control a pilot recieved credit. Not all out of control planes went down. In Barkers last fight he passed out and was OOC several times before he actually crashed. (How many actually claimed him as a kill I wonder) Some OOC's weren't, rather a pilot trying to escape a bad situation.

Also, in the American air service, and I think the French, if several pilots joined in making a kill, all recieved credit for the kill. No one-quarter or one-third etc.. victory, but rather full credit. Three pilots manage to down one plane. One is actually lost but three are thereby credited.

Seems like some inaccuracies to me.

Cody

[CodyPaul]

Was trying to find the air combat above and found this instead. I think it still applies.

" On 26 April 1915 at Courtrai, Belgium, Second Lieutenant Rhodes-Moorhouse swept low over the rail junction which he had been ordered to attack. He released his 100lb. bomb, but was immediately plunged into a heavy barrage of small arms fire from rifles and machine-gun in the belfry of Courtrai Church; he was severely wounded by a bullet in his thigh and his plane was also badly hit. Returning to the Allied lines, he again ran into heavy fire from the ground and was wounded twice more. He managed to get his aircraft back, and insisted on making his report before being taken to the Casualty Clearing Station where he died the next day. "

" The first airman to perform an action subsequently rewarded with the VC."

http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=888

[CodyPaul]

Found it. Rather long (quite an individual it seems) so heres the link:
http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=805

I was wrong though. He was the pilot not the observer. He did however climb out on the wing to bring the plane back while it was on fire.

Cody

[Angiolillo]

Originally posted by CodyPaul@Mar 5 2004, 12:14 PM
[b]Also, in the American air service, and I think the French, if several pilots joined in making a kill, all recieved credit for the kill. No one-quarter or one-third etc.. victory, but rather full credit.

I'd say in Italy too. Sometimes even with Italian and foreigner pilots together.

[Shooter]

Everyone is entitled to believe what ever he wishes.

I wanted that statement up front, before I stirred up this sewage and pissed anyone off. HOWEVER, comma, the rationalization that aircraft in the Great War were more fragile than aircraft in the Second Big Show does not, IMHO, hold up; and it totally ignores the fact that aircraft weaponry in the later conflict had increased in destructive power by an order of magnitude.

It is an assumption that aircraft (a/c ) in the first war were indeed made of largely inferior materials in many respects. However the physical forces stressing an airframe at that time were much less than in the second war. And the fact that the a/c were covered with linen and not by stressed aluminum meant that there was almost nothing to hit. The bullets passed through the airframe in most instances inflicting little to no damage in the process. Too numerous were the events that were recorded where a/c in the Great War returned from sortie only to discover on the ground that they had been shredded by enemy fire unnoticed by the driver. With a new "linen wrap," the same bird would be back on line the next morning.

In the second war, the ascendance of the 20mm cannon and larger brought the destructive power of air-to-air weapons to the point that three hits in an important portion of the air frame could destroy an a/c without even touching the key targets (engine, pilot, fuel cell, etc.). Even the big MG's (the 12.7mm M-2 is an incredibly destructive weapon in its own right...if you have ever seen what .50 caliber API's will do to, say, a junked automobile, you would know what I mean&#33 would tear up an airframe beyond all recognition when they went to work.

Add to that the fact that some very important a/c in the beginning of the war were made in similar style to the a/c in the Great War. The Hurricane and I believe the early Spits were covered with fabric over much of their airframe, and this proved to be something of an advantage. The usually lethal projectiles fired from MG-FF 20mm cannon inflicted less damage upon on a fabric-covered fuselage than it did on stressed aluminum skin. Food for thought.

If you want an explanation about the veracity of the scoring of the Great War, you need to look hard at the fact that reporting systems were generous and tended to depend on the driver making an accurate and objective after-action report. Also, those reports were often reviewed by a less-than-critical eye. I do not suggest that these people told lies, but it is rather natural to make some assumptions in combat that are less than borne out by historical review. If anything, the reporting systems in the Second Big Show tended to be more demanding and more critical than they were in the Great War. If you ignore the obvious prevarication resulting from national propaganda, they were usually much more accurate.

Like I said first, believe what ever you will. Rationalize what you wish. But the factor of accurate reporting is the issue over victory tallies, accurate and otherwise.


Shooter sends

[Barrett]

Shooter be right.
So why is anybody surprised?

There's been far too much tripe written about "fragile crates." TGW in the air was fought with rifle ammunition, and anybody who's shot much .30 cal. knows that wood DOES stop it at various ranges. I've seen part of Ham Coolidge's SPAD with a 7.92 round in the leading edge--no penetration. If you wanted to bring down a GW aeroplane, shoot the engine, or better yet, the pilot. Doped cotton/linen over the airframe provided good to excellent structural integrity. (Hey, it got me thru abou t 600 hours in bipes&#33

Victory scores and their enormous failings have cussed & discussed here many a time: the search function prob'ly turns up several pages. Just remember: the "destroyed" category inevitably contains significant error, so the OOCs, DDs, FTLs, and ETCs are that much less reliable. Only the Germans operated on a purely destroyed basis with one victory to a customer. Everybody else counted shares including the Austo-Hungarians. (It's been noted before, but the USAS was notoriously lax in granting claims. Rickenbacker's score includes 10 OOCs and several "dived east" plus an outrageous "Fokker last seen in vertical bank." He prob'ly destroyed 5-6 airplanes and 5 balloons, 2 on the ground.)

[Shooter]

Barrett be brutally frank. And if the USAS (assumption/probably) was the worst, trust that they was not the only one.


Shooter sends

[cameldriver]

Certainly, the planes in WWI were much more susceptible to fire than those of WWII. The doped fabric and wood burned much more easily than the metal planes of WWII, and there were no fire extinguishers, either hand held or built into the engines. I agree that WWI planes were not as fragile as they are sometimes made out to be, but I still think they were easier to bring down than those in WWII. I've seen photos of Flying Fortresses with half the plane shot away that returned to base. The technological advances between the wars favored the integrity of the planes more than the means to destroy them (IHOF).

[Shooter]

Read again my first post, first line.


Shooter sends