out of control

[David B]

After stirring up a bit of a hornets nest about dumdum bullets I am a bit loath to come up with this one but here goes

What was the criteria for a pilot claiming victory as 'out of control' ?

Sure, I realize what that means but was it always a victory? Could not a pilot - and I daresay many did - assume an

OOC attitude to escape an attacker. Was it because the victorious pilot did not have time to see his victim crash during a

dogfight or what. And if OOC was denied as a 'kill' would not a lot of our ace pilots be many fewer kills than they are credited

with

David

[Rockdoc]

From a few snippets I've read lately, there were some planes that were tricky to fly at all so it's difficult to see pilots deliberately simulating OOC flight. One example I found in some correspondence between OC 16 Wing RFC/RAF and CinC Salonika. The CinC was concerned that "not enough trouble" was being taken to attack enemy aircraft. In his reply, the OC stated that the planes he had could not reach the altitudes possible with the German designs (mostly Albatros from War Diaries). He says that he is expecting planes "of the Vickers Bullet type" which could fly much higher to be delivered shortly but, he admits, they were difficult to fly and, particularly, to land.

Keith

[Dolphin]

David

It's a bit complex, but an 'out of control' victory essentially meant that the enemy aeroplane was thought to have left the fight no longer under the control of the pilot. This meant more in the first years of the War, when a victory might mean a moral, rather than a physical triumph, ie the enemy didn't carry out the mission intended, and was driven away or forced to land, even though the crew and aeroplane may have lived to fight another day. There's a parallel in 19th century naval warfare, where one ship might be victorious over another by damaging it and/or forcing it back to port, but not sinking it.

By 1917 air fighting had become more intense and sophisticated, and victories were limited to aeroplanes destroyed or last seen going down 'out of control' [in the 1939-1945 War, they would have been called probable victories]. The daily RFC and RAF Communiques listed victories, including out of controls, until May 1918, when out of controls were deleted due to the sheer volume of them. However, out of controls were still counted in pilots' individual tallies and medal citations. The main thing is not to confuse out of control victories with destroyed aircraft.

I hope that this is useful.

Gareth

[David B]

Gareth,

I will always accede to the mastermind of air fighting. Thank you. My main problem was to believe

that a lot of OOC 'victories' may not have been victories as such but rather the 'defeated' using this mechanism

as a way to live another day. Meanwhile the superior pilot seeing an aircraft spinning out of control counted

it as a victory.

David

[centurion]

The RFC (and the RAF in WW1) did not favour reporting pilot's victories and the 'ace' system and their records did not work on recording 'victories' but catagorised results as aircraft destroyed, forced to land and forced down out of control (and also recorded damaged). It was largely the press (and subsequent writers) who totted things up and published victory figures for pilots. When official figures were released they clearly distinguished between destroyed and DOOC. These figures reproduced in the NYT show how the distinction was maintained NYT. Spinning appears to have been the main cause of DOOC. Whilst pilots were taught to recover from a spin it was regarded as something one did not want to get into (you couldn't always recover) and was in any case a much slower descent than an out and out dive (and one was vulnerable to attack whilst spinning) so it probably wasn't such a bright escape tactic. Much better to dive away. It would seem a reasonable inference that a plane that spun away was genuinely out of control. One possible exception was the Albatross DIV and DV which in the German built models tended to suffer from lower wing flutter and catastrophic failure in steep dives (KuK built Albatross DIV and DV didn't suffer from this problem but that's another story) so its possible that they sometimes resorted to this ruse

[PhilB]

However, out of controls were still counted in pilots' individual tallies and medal citations. Gareth

Was an official tally count held for pilots? I can`t imagine a similar official tally count being made for, say, snipers - it was their job and they got on with it. I don`t recall a sniper getting a medal for it. Was the RFC purpose of such a count to encourage aggression or esprit de corps? Did pilots` medals tend to come pro rata with the number of kills?

[centurion]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Apr 4 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was an official tally count held for pilots? I can`t imagine a similar official tally count being made for, say, snipers - it was their job and they got on with it. I don`t recall a sniper getting a medal for it. Was the RFC purpose of such a count to encourage aggression or esprit de corps? Did pilots` medals tend to come pro rata with the number of kills?

I agree, DOOCs were mentioned in medal citations as part of the description of the action or actions for which the award was made but as far as I can tell there were no official 'kill' tally for pilots in the British forces and records for pilots recorded destroyed, forced to land, down out of control and damaged as seperate totals

[Dolphin]

One possible exception was the Albatross DIV and KuK built Albatross DIV

I though that there was only one Albatros D.IV - a flying test bed, with partial D.II wings and a D.Va fuselage with a geared Mercedes engine. Performance was poor, and the project went no further. It seems strange that the Austro-Hungarians would build D.IVs when their 153 and 253 series D.IIIs were superior to the German D.V. Do you have other information on this?

Gareth

[centurion]

I though that there was only one Albatros D.IV - a flying test bed, with partial D.II wings and a D.Va fuselage with a geared Mercedes engine. Performance was poor, and the project went no further. It seems strange that the Austro-Hungarians would build D.IVs when their 153 and 253 series D.IIIs were superior to the German D.V. Do you have other information on this?

Gareth

A mis type as I'm sure you realised - I meant DIII

[centurion]

Citations usually distinguished between destroyed and DOOC see these two for the MC

T. Sec. Lieut. HUGH WILLIAM LUMSDEN SAUNDERS, M.M.,Gen. List, attd. R.A.F.—For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty.

During recent operations he destroyed five enemy machines and shot down four out of control. He

showed great courage and skill in engaging enemy aircraft, and did splendid service.

Lt. (T. Capt.) STANLEY STANGER, R.A.F.—For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty in destroying six enemy aeroplanes.

He did splendid service

[David B]

If one takes Above The Trenches as a definitive guide as to victories by 'aces' (5 or more) there are an

awful lot of OOC's which are included in an airmans tally.

I wonder if a study has ever been done re claims as to the number of aircraft each side admitted to losing. I bet

there would be a great disparity. I think in the heat of battle it would have quite easy to get your tally wrong

david

[Michael Molkentin]

Whilst pilots were taught to recover from a spin it was regarded as something one did not want to get into (you couldn't always recover) and was in any case a much slower descent than an out and out dive (and one was vulnerable to attack whilst spinning) so it probably wasn't such a bright escape tactic. Much better to dive away. It would seem a reasonable inference that a plane that spun away was genuinely out of control. One possible exception was the Albatross DIV and DV which in the German built models tended to suffer from lower wing flutter and catastrophic failure in steep dives (KuK built Albatross DIV and DV didn't suffer from this problem but that's another story) so its possible that they sometimes resorted to this ruse

Hi

Im doing some work on RFC training in 1917 at present (focusing on Australian cadets) and I have come across a few primary source accounts by pupils who claim that (1) their instructors taught them to spin during higher instruction courses and (2) that spinning was taught specifically as a defensive tactic. I have one pilot, writing to his family in August 1917, who actually states that his instructor had impressed on him the value of spinning to sham being out of control.

Michael

[Adrian Roberts]

Most of the lists of WW1 aces' victories include OOC claims, whereas in WW2 victory numbers don't include "probables".

But I think we have to accept that this is the way they did it then. It may seem dubious to us, but corroboration was not easy, especially for the Allies whose victims were more likely to fall on the other side of the lines than the victims of the Germans. No doubt the OOC category was more open to false or optimistic claiming, but that was not its intention.

I was looking at Collishaw's victory list recently, and his tally of 60-odd would be reduced to about 27 if OOC are discounted (a far greater difference than, say, McCudden). We all know there are some aces whose claims are highly dubious (not just the obvious one). Maybe Collishaw was cheating or over-optimistic, but there is no specific reason to think so, and the crucial thing is that OOC claims were perfectly legitimate at the time. (Collishaw's claim to have brought down Allmenroder is probably false, but he didn't start to claim this till after the war).

Peter Hart in "Aces Falling" is just one author who points out that over-claiming was endemic on both sides; he says that many pilots were over-optimistic, but only a very few were complete frauds. This wasn't just WW1: in the Battle of Britain, research has shown that both sides over-claimed by at least twice as much as the actual figures. The claim of an 11:1 kill-ratio for the F4U Corsair over its Japanese opponents has been shown to be a massive exaggeration.

Was an official tally count held for pilots? I can`t imagine a similar official tally count being made for, say, snipers - it was their job and they got on with it. I don`t recall a sniper getting a medal for it. Was the RFC purpose of such a count to encourage aggression or esprit de corps? Did pilots` medals tend to come pro rata with the number of kills?

It was the Germans who started the practice of publicising their ace's figures, with Immelmann and Boelcke in late 1915. The French responded to this practice by publicising their own aces (Navarre, Guynemer). The British pilots may have started totting up their scores in response to this , and perhaps becoming competitive about it, but the British Press were not allowed to identify living aces until early 1918, unless a VC was awarded. Initially a German ace was awarded the Pour Le Merite after eight victories, but this was soon raised to 16, then doubled again. The British had no such system whatever.

[Michael Molkentin]

the British Press were not allowed to identify living aces until early 1918, unless a VC was awarded. Initially a German ace was awarded the Pour Le Merite after eight victories, but this was soon raised to 16, then doubled again. The British had no such system whatever.

Hi Adrian- interesting point. Do you have a reference for this? Is it in the OH?

There is a communique from Haig i'm aware of in September 1917 that states that he and Trenchard were "entirely averse" to publicising individual pilots. He claims that despite "certain other armies" doing this, it is not part of the British Army's traditions and culture and that "officers of the RFC are proud of being anonymous like their comrades in other branches of the service." (HA Jones, vol. 4, p. 201)

Im not sure they were so proud of it, but nonetheless, it clearly states official GHQ policy on the matter in late 1917. I wonder what changed for "early 1918" when, as you suggest, the policy might have been revised.

Michael

[centurion]

Most of the lists of WW1 aces' victories include OOC claims, whereas in WW2 victory numbers don't include "probables".

But I think we have to accept that this is the way they did it then. It may seem dubious to us, but corroboration was not easy, especially for the Allies whose victims were more likely to fall on the other side of the lines than the victims of the Germans. No doubt the OOC category was more open to false or optimistic claiming, but that was not its intention.

Pilots were positively prohibited from following a DOOC down as this could bring them into range from smalll arms fire from the ground (and could in any case be a trap). In any case doing so could well mean abandoning the original mission (such as protecting one's own two seaters)

[Adrian Roberts]

Hi Adrian- interesting point. Do you have a reference for this? Is it in the OH?

I can't lay my hands on a specific reference at present, but I think it is fairly well-known. It was certainly mentioned in the recent Timewatch documentary on the BBC, that in early 1918 the Press finally got the Air Ministry to release the names of four of the leading living British aces, including McCudden and Fullard. (Not much help to you in Australia, I know...). Before that, virtually the only ace known to the public without having been awarded a VC was Ball (his VC was posthumous). Bishop, Hawker, and the Zeppelin victors Robinson and Warneford became known on account of their VCs.

[David B]

Thanks Centurion,

A most logical explanation, I agree the mission is the most important event, whatever else

occurs is secondary, unless of course you are about to be blasted out of the sky

David