Rene Fonck

Elfen · 10 June 2006, 12:28 PM

It is with selective luck that Fonck managed to survive as far as he did and get away with it. OK, he choose his battles wisely, but luck has to have a play in it as well. Voss went on his last flight and took on 2 lone targets before being pounced on by the 56th squadron, and managed to fight them as long as he did! How well would have Fonck lasted in those odds?

Ball and McCudden both fell due to mechanical failures of their planes; in Ball's case if his SE5a did not fail on him when it did, Lothar may not have survived that battle. McCudden may have surpassed Fonck and possibly the Baron if he kept flying for another year. Again, attribute this to luck, karma, mojo, what ever.

Guynemer managed to survive this long and was shot down 6 or more times during his carrer, but when he flew, he out flew his opponents, and being fair about it- he may have spared more than just a few blokes who had dud-guns, as per the case when he went against Udet. Question is- how many more did he spared? Thats being a gentleman, in not shoting at an 'unarmed' opponant, for he wanted too, he could have just as easily plucked Udet out of the skies and there would be one less German to worry about.

If you're an excellent shot as Fonck was, picking targets off at 200+ yards would be easy once you get your machine up to where you want it in the mechancial sense; the rest is putting your plane where you know you can hit your target from behind. That does not take much in considerable flying skill. Shoot, score and fly away, by the time the other side found out what has happened, you would be long gone from the scene.

Q: Did Fonck had same set of the 37mm canon that Guynemer had? I've heard that he did. Then again, what was the range on it?

Elfen · 10 June 2006, 12:29 PM

It is with selective luck that Fonck managed to survive as far as he did and get away with it. OK, he choose his battles wisely, but luck has to have a play in it as well. Voss went on his last flight and took on 2 lone targets before being pounced on by the 56th squadron, and managed to fight them as long as he did! How well would have Fonck lasted in those odds?

Ball and McCudden both fell due to mechanical failures of their planes; in Ball's case if his SE5a did not fail on him when it did, Lothar may not have survived that battle. McCudden may have surpassed Fonck and possibly the Baron if he kept flying for another year. Again, attribute this to luck, karma, mojo, what ever.

Guynemer managed to survive this long and was shot down 6 or more times during his carrer, but when he flew, he out flew his opponents, and being fair about it- he may have spared more than just a few blokes who had dud-guns, as per the case when he went against Udet. Question is- how many more did he spared? Thats being a gentleman, in not shoting at an 'unarmed' opponant, for he wanted too, he could have just as easily plucked Udet out of the skies and there would be one less German to worry about.

If you're an excellent shot as Fonck was, picking targets off at 200+ yards would be easy once you get your machine up to where you want it in the mechancial sense; the rest is putting your plane where you know you can hit your target from behind. That does not take much in considerable flying skill. Shoot, score and fly away, by the time the other side found out what has happened, you would be long gone from the scene.

Q: Did Fonck had same set of the 37mm canon that Guynemer had? I've heard that he did.

Elfen · 10 June 2006, 12:40 PM

WT... How did that happened? i was about to edit my last post, only to find two- and only difference it in the tail...

Anyways, I was thinking; Dont get me wrong, Fonck was a great ace of the lone wolf pack (like Ball, Voss, and Guynemer were). It take considerable strength and courrage to go up and hunt like they did, But in Fonck's case, though sucessful his stragedy was, I have to question how well would he faired if his luck was lowered by a bit.

In some cases, the hunter becomes the hunted, and Fonck may have had the luck not to fall into such a situation.

As for aces, for me Ball ranks up there within my top 3; not many pilots would return to a base with a shot up plane, and steal another one to go back into the thick of battle! And often fighting ground crews while stealing the plane!

Southside Bucky · 10 June 2006, 02:19 PM

So that's your considered opinion is it Elfen?

What Fonck achieved and the fact that he survived the war was all down to luck. And his ability to stalk enemy planes, then get into a favourable position (probably without being seen) and bring them down was quite easy really...

Sheesh, words fail me!...

It's a strange thing, but I'd like to know why Fonck never seems to command the respect his WW1 record more than deserves. People always seem to run the guy down or say; yeah, he was good, but...

So what, if he wasn't a very likeable fella? His job was to bring down enemy planes, and he did it better than anyone, including Der Rittmeister!

Regards.

Bucky.

Pips · 10 June 2006, 06:33 PM

Luck and survival certainly go hand in hand. And luck does play a huge part in aerial combat, especially with the fragile aircraft of WWI.

Nevertheless good pilots do make their own luck. And there can be no doubt of Fonke being an outstanding pilot. He, like Richthofen, Mannock, Boelcke and McCudden he was a thinker and a planner. Not for him the mad rush of blood and attack the enemy at any cost like Guynemer or Ball. He would attack only when the odds were on his side.

He was merticulous, a perfectionist, a keen mechanic, he studied tactics, made sure his aircraft was in the best condition, loaded his own ammunition and he went out to do his job with the least risk to himself ie kill the enemy.

And he was outstandingly successful. He may not have been liked, but he was certainly respected.

retread · 11 June 2006, 03:02 AM

Certainly luck favored Fonck, but that was an even playing field. Chance applied to every pilot who took to the air. What made Fonck outstanding was his ability to control such factors as he could regarding aerial combat. A tactician and technician who practiced self-discipline and self-denial. His sucess at controling the elements of battle were the primary , if not only, reason for his survival. Not only did he survive but he may well have inflicted more direct damage to his enemies than any other fighter pilot throughout the war.
It is quite a coincidence that Erich Hartmann's approach to aircombat closely mirrored Fonck's and that he too outlived his conflict.While inflicting tremendous damage.

Vin · 11 June 2006, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfen

Ball and McCudden both fell due to mechanical failures of their planes; in Ball's case if his SE5a did not fail on him when it did, Lothar may not have survived that battle. ....

Kiernan's account has Ball chasing an albatros into a cloud bank. None of the observers say it was Lothar's 'plane. Cross referral of German and British sources acknowledge that Lothar was in the vicinity but that the two ever “fought” is as speculative as Lothar’s claim.

Bulldog90 · 12 June 2006, 02:37 PM

Kiernan's isn't really a qualified account on Ball's last fight is it? It seemed that book was more about establishing the memory of a young hero than anything else, and it was written too soon after the war to have been throughly researched.

Most historians now agree that Ball's flight ran into a kette of Jasta 11, led by

Lothar von Richthofen that evening ( MvR being on leave). According to statements from other pilots in the fight (

Billy Crowe,

Cecil Lewis), Ball was last seen engaged in a series of head on runs at a dark colored Albatros, before disappearing into the clouds. Ball's aircraft likely became inverted, and the engine flooded, and stopped, leaving him without power and too low to correct. Lothar, his plane apparently hit by Ball's fire, also went down in a rough, forced landing.

Bulldog 90

Craig · 12 June 2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southside Bucky

So what, if he wasn't a very likeable fella? His job was to bring down enemy planes, and he did it better than anyone, including Der Rittmeister!

Nope. Five short.

Elfen · 12 June 2006, 03:20 PM

Q: What was the range on the 37mm canon that Fonck and Guynemer had on their spads?

I would bet dollars to dimes that Fonck flew with a sniper's state of mind- seek enemy within maxium range, constantly check area for 'his friends', take the shot when all is clear.

In war, snipers are great when they go out on their own terms, and often make the needed kills. But I'm just saying- if a hidden sniper were to be discovered and surrounded by the enemy troops, how long would he have lasted?

Now replace the word 'sniper' with Fonck and 'troops' with aircraft, and then re-ask the question and try to answer it. Fonck was great at what he did, but he had the luck of never falling into the situation that befell on Voss, or in the least McCudden or Ball (be pounced on and attacked by the enemy or mechanical failure of his aircraft).

Though there is nothing wrong with that, its what he did on the ground that got him his reputation of being a braggert, is what gets him in trouble.

Some people are just luckier than others.