percentage of pilots that saw enemy before being s

[Stephan]

Its been said that 80 % of pilots in ww2 that were shot down never saw it coming. I wonder what the percentage would be in WW1? As planes were slower, I would imagine the percentage to be a bit lower. any thoughts?

[R Pope]

Given the level of training extant in WW1, I would think that a greenhorn wouldn't know what to do even if he saw it coming! The WW1 planes probably were even more demanding than the more modern ones, giving the pilot even less time for looking around.Most books by aces admit that they were blind and helpless the first few times out.

[Barrett]

The oft-quoted 80% figure has one origin: the Erich Hartmann bio by Toliver & Constable. While I doubt the figure under any circumstance, I'm willing to concede it in Hartmann's particular case. (This topic was thoroughly cussed & dis-cussed previously)

The only survey I've ever heard of that included the subject of surprise in aerial combat was the one I conducted in the American Fighter Aces Assn. c. 1985. The results were later published in USAF Fighter Weapons Review. Responses from some 200 aces from four wars showed remarkable similarity: about 1/4 of shootdowns (theirs and ours&#33 were achieved by surprise. There were fewer in the jet age owing to thorough radar coverage of the combat areas.

[cameldriver]

From what I have read, two of the favorite tactics utilized by fighter pilots in WWI would have resulted in the victim being shot down before he knew what was happening. In the first instance a la Ball, the pilot would dive down from out of the sun, firing as he went threw the enemy formation, hoping to inflict damage. He would continue to dive, using his speed to get away from the remaining planes before they could get him. The second strategy a la McCudden, used for getting two seaters was to come from behind and below and get in the blind spot beneath their tail and rake the plane before they were aware that he was there. Both tactics utilized the element of surprise. Even in a dogfight, pilots intent on firing at an enemy would fall prey to another plane coming up on their tail. Finally, beware the Hun in the sun. From all of this it would seem the overwhelming number of casualties never knew what hit them.

[Barrett]

Read McCudden's book: looks as if most of his victims knew he was there--they just couldn't shoot at him while he was shooting at them. I've not seen Ball's combat reports, but even so, that's one pilot among thousands. Furthermore, the question of surprise is far more complex than it appears to most folks. OK--you tip-toe up behind somebody and fire your first burst unseen. Unless he's dead or defeated at that moment, the combat no longer turns on surprise.

If there's empirical evidence contradicting the AFAA survey, let's see it!

[Ginger.]

To quote Squadron Leader 'Skipper' from the film Battle of Britain.
"You idiot! What have I always told you? Never fly straight and level for more than thirty seconds in the combat zone."

[Barker]

Originally posted by Barrett@Apr 19 2004, 10:36 PM
[b] Furthermore, the question of surprise is far more complex than it appears to most folks. OK--you tip-toe up behind somebody and fire your first burst unseen. Unless he's dead or defeated at that moment, the combat no longer turns on surprise.

This is the central item.

It doesn't matter if you got jumped - if you survived the jump - it matters how you reacted.
At the rates of change WW1 combat occured, a pilot could often have time to at least react to an aggressive situation.

Many aces, in each of their writings, comment on exactly this idea, that a pilot may get jumped is possible (tho' the odds do not favor you if you push your luck), that a pilot who reacts poorly - or not at all - will get killed.

We read passages similar to this repeatedly: "..fired a burst/dove on my victim/snuck up on my unsuspecting quarry and he continued to fly straight/began flight school manuver/attempted to run away/was obviously a novice."

The edge goes to an attacker but many of the accomplished pilots who were themselves attacked often turned tables on their opponent.

---
I don't know enough about jets and missles but make this assumption:
-The same thing applies before the fact while setting up a firing solution.
-Happens much quicker
-Happens at much greater ranges.

[Alan]

The olde adage, "Lose sight, lose fight" can never be overstated...the following is from the first chapter from Rickenbacker's Fighting the Flying Circus. I'll let you make your own determination as to the odds...

Both Campbell and I wore satisfactory countenances of bored indifference. We had had a little flip around over the Hun batteries and it had been most droll seeing the gunners wasting their ammunition. We must have cost the Kaiser a year's income by our little jaunt into his lines. As for enemy aeroplanes, none of them dared to venture up against us. Not a plane was in our vicinity.

Just here Major Lufbery broke into the conversation and asked us particularly what we had seen. I didn't like the sound of his customary little chuckle on this occasion. But we both repeated as easily as we could that we hadn't seen any other aeroplanes in the sky.

"Just what I expected. They are all the same! " was the Major's only comment.

We indignantly asked him what he meant by addressing two expert war pilots in such tones.

" Well," said Lufbery, " one formation of five Spads crossed under us before we passed the lines and another flight of five Spads went by about fifteen minutes later and you didn't see them, although neither one of them was more than 500 yards away. It was just as well they were not Boches!

" Then there were four German Albatros two miles ahead of us when we turned back and there was another enemy two-seater nearer us than that, at about 5,000 feet above the lines. You ought to look about a bit when you get in enemy lines.."

Campbell and I stood aghast, looking at each other. Then I saw he was thinking the same thoughts as I. The Major was ragging us from a sense of duty, to take some of the conceit out of us. But it was only after weeks of experience over the front that we realized how true his statements probably were. No matter how good a flyer the scout may be and no matter how perfect his eyesight is, he must learn to see before he can distinguish objects either on the ground or in air. What is called "vision of the air" can come only from experience and no pilot ever has it upon his first arrival at the front.

Then sauntering over to my machine the Major bucked me up very considerably by blandly inquiring, "How much of that shrapnel did you get, Rick?" I couldn't help laughing at his effort to put me in a heroic picture-frame for the benefit of the boys who were listening. Imagine my horror when he began interestedly poking his finger in one shrapnel hole in the tail; another fragment had gone through the outer edge of the wing and a third had passed directly through both wings not a foot from my body!

The boys told me afterwards that I stayed pale for a good thirty minutes and I believe them, for a week passed before the Major suggested to me that I again accompany him into the German lines.

[Barrett]

Lookout doctrine evolved greatly in the jet age--of necessity. That's the main point of "loose deuce" in which each pilot can look through the other's canopy and/or clear his partner's tail. As Barks noted, it's really important in the missile era with much expanded firing envelopes and therefore much less warning time. The other great thing about LD, of course, is flexibility. You have two potential shooters instead of one shooter and bullet magnet.

Break-break

Just spent some time going thru MvR's reports. He specifically mentions taking opponents by surprise just 6 times but his surviving victims' accounts add another 3. There are an additional 7 occasions in which it's reasonable to believe he surprised folks because he dispatched them from close range with few BBs. So....that's 16 out of 80, even less than my study's historic figure of 25%. AND MANFRED WAS KNOWN AS A STALKER!

So--if there's contradictory data rather than vague impressions or assumptions, I'd like to see it.

[Stephan]

Fascinating, 25 % eh? & good point Barker about ww1 pilots having time to react & turn tables. & yet another interesting factoid about the Baron. 16 out of 80 being surprised,(roughly speaking). Kicks yet another hole in the theory that his victims were all helpless stragglers straight out of the boy scouts etc etc.