How much wood could a woodchuck chuck...

[Killratio]

Leading on from a previous thread…..

The Great Claims Debate.

I think much of the debate would have passed well over the heads of many of the airmen, leaving them wondering what all the fuss was about. They just reported what they saw.

There is a modern perception that British “ Combats in the Air Reports” (hereinafter CiTARs) were established to “count victories”. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is -we-, some 90 years later, who use them for that purpose.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of them which make no claim as to even FIRING at an enemy aircraft or reference ineffectual rifle fire at some distance. In fact, early on, Contacts in the Air would have been a much more accurate title.

To understand this, you must first look at why the military has a reporting structure in the first place, vis:

To create a collective knowledge of what has transpired and to assess the overall effect of those actions. That is to say, it is an intelligence measure to aid in command decision making and future planning. Were this not the case, after action assessment would consist merely of : Soldier A has been in a fight, Soldier A is still alive....let’s get drunk.

So the CiTARs recorded what happened from the pilots’ and observers’ points of view. Many reports (particularly early ones) include elaborate drawings of enemy aircraft and lengthy discussion of speed and other performance features. “Flew parallel to enemy aeroplane which would not cross our lines”, “enemy aeroplane dove Eastward, I could not make any ground on him” and suchlike are very common accounts of “combats” and both the noted cases may have very well resulted in what we today call a “mission kill”. Barrett would have much to say on that point, no doubt. (are you there BT?)

The Germans by contrast, became very quickly aware of the propaganda value of victories. Same with the French. It is therefore little wonder that they aimed their confirmation process squarely at “smoking holes”. The intelligence use was there as well ie a smoking hole is generally one less effective enemy.

I believe as few as 200 German reports survive (per Dr Frank), so there is no way of knowing whether indecisive combats (or non-combats) were routinely reported. A quick scan of the Jasta 35b Kriegstagbusche notes many days with “Keine Luftkampfe” but who is to say this means none at all? It may be that there were not any “significant” contacts. Unless more German reports are found, we may never know.

Most debate seems to turn on whether the British overclaimed compared to the Germans.

Claimed what?? The detractors point to OOC’s and cry foul. Why? It –was- a valid claim in the British system. Does it compare to German claim requirements? No. Should it? Of course not.

A Soccer score may read 1/0, a Rugby score 13/0 an Australian Rules Football game 104/58 and a cricket score can be off the charts. Do the scores represent how exciting the games are relative to each other? Can they be directly compared?

And yet each score seeks to measure the relative performance of the “combatants” in that contest.

The whole “my ace is bigger than your ace” becomes a nonsense. On that account, who ever invented the fiction that the greatest combat pilot was the one with the greatest number of enemy “kills”?

I often wonder how many men Napoleon personally killed, Wellington, Montgomery, Paton?

What of observers? It was mentioned in an early thread that a disproportionate amount of research and interest is poured into Pilots. “Public school boy Officers, dodging the trenches” or similar comment. Of course most of the observers WERE public school boy Officers as well, who, like their pilots, had often seen years in the trenches…but stripped of that particularly faulty logic, the question stands and is quite valid. The first job for aircraft in that war was observation (given the small useful payload and consequent lack of offensive power, this is unremarkable).

Air combat was born out of a desire, nay an imperative, to prevent the enemy observing.

The whole reason for being remained, largely until the second war, to get to see what was on the other side of the hill.

It is true that later the British did count “scores” and make some note of the “hotshots”. It is true that the system became somewhat corrupted to this end. It is not true that the primary interest became “how many we shot down today”.

The proper maintenance of air supremacy and the recon which that allowed, was always the highest priority. That 90 years hence we choose to obsess ourselves with scores and who got whom (I am as guilty as any on this count) is irrelevant to the intention of the time.

Respectfully submitted

Darryl

[Dolphin]

Darryl

Very well said - in the early days a 'victory' could simply mean that the enemy was stopped from carrying out his mission. I think that there's too much confusion with the 1939-1945 definition of a 'victory' meaning a wrecked enemy aeroplane.

Cheers

Gareth

[Guest dinkidi]

Darryl

Very well said

Gareth

Seconded!

Pat

[Killratio]

Thankyou Gents,

This whole "debate" is too often prefaced on fundamentally incorrect concepts.

That is the main point I wished to address. The thread may move on to discuss

accuracy of claims but the "intention" behind the systems of verification/claim need, IMHO always to be kept in mind. Too many people argue passionately that OOCs should be discounted but then go on to spend hours to-ing and fro-ing over the accuracy of those very claims. This is held up as some kind of proof that the RFC was full of outright liars.

Gareth, the 39-45 reference is spot on. It is interesting to note that the same Germans who apparently possessed an almost mythical ability to claim correctly, produced offspring who, by 1940, had caught whatever malady affected WW1 British pilots. Fighting over Britain, they apparently overclaimed by as much as the RFC did in the first war. (I will confess to having seen that bland statement in print without detailed figures to back it up...the fact remains that Goering was convinced by his pilots that the RAF was almost wiped out in the early stages of The Battle of Britain).

Just more gris for the mill

Darryl

[healdav]

I once read a short article by an RAF Intelligence Officer who was stationed at an airfield and interviewed pilots, etc on their after battle reports.

His comment was that he and others were, at the time convinced that they were overstating planes shot down, damaged, etc.

But they had in front of them a pilot or crew who had been adrenalined up to the eyeballs (and maybe still was) had been involved in dogfights that may have lasted seconds, not even minutes, were dogtired mentally, and so, and so on, it would take a very brave man to start arguing that X sounded just like the plane that his mate had claimed to have shot down five minutes before.

They simply could not subject these men to a third degree.

I do think it amusing, in some ways that whilst we accept that a soldier's view of a fight will be restricted and may be wrong for any of several reasons, we expect a pilot's account to be absolutely accurate.

[BlackSeptember1918]

All very true and well presented .

I'm going to roll out my old barrel again ...and that is that many experts in the airwar give little thought to what was going on below the air battles , this gives them a tunnel vision effect , and although they impress the hell out of me with their knowledge , sometimes they loss the bigger picture . Which comes to your point Darryl , and just as you indicated , the Brits didn't have a claiming system because it wasn't a priority . The priority was recon , art ob and contact patrols .

Just on your second post ...you know I can't resist jumping from era to era don't ya mate . But even different formations during WWII had varied success at claiming . During the rodeo's and circus's flown against occupied France in 41-42 . From my reading JG26 was somewhere in the ballpark on their claiming , but JG2 was way over the top ...strange huh . I guess my only qualifier is that the B of B being flown on home soil should have meant more accurate claiming by the RAF , but ofcourse priority's surface again . I just love that Dowding line , something about " I don't care about claims , if enough of our young men shoot down enough of their young men , then they will stop comming " ....or maybe i've just watched the movie " Battle of Britain " too many times ...heh heh .

Anyway , bottom line is that if you got the pictures you needed to launch the " Big Push " as spring tripped north again this year ( to steal a line from Alan Seeger ) then you were having success ...and that is one of my biggest dissapointments ..being that there really is so little written about 2-seater ob Squadrons ...which is a real shame .

Phil.

[Dolphin]

Darryl

I suppose there's a parallel between the RFC/RNAS/RAF of 1914-1918 on the Western Front and the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain in that the bulk of the combat took place over enemy territory. The Germans in the Great War could usually find the wreckage of enemy aircraft brought down as they fell behind their lines - this wasn't the case for the Allies, nor was it for the Luftwaffe over Britain a generation later.

Another major difference between the Wars would have to be the use of gun cameras in the later conflict.

I have to agree with Phil about the most important roles of the airmen in the Great War being artillery observation and reconnaisance (the impact of bombing remained relatively minor). The fighter pilots to whom so much attention is directed were really there to stop the opposition from spotting for the guns and taking photographs.

To slightly digress from Darryl's orginal post: are any soccer games exciting?

Cheers

Gareth

[MikeW]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of them which make no claim as to even FIRING at an enemy aircraft or reference ineffectual rifle fire at some distance.

Right on Darryl, most people do not seem to appreciate this at all.

I do find it frustrating though, that it's quite often these "contact reports" that are missing from the records. The squadron "ops" book might say "Combat report" against a particular mission and if you know that there wasn't a claim made that day, there's a good chance that the Citar isn't going to show up in the usual places.

I usually end up trawling through Brigade and Wing war diaries in the hope that a copy might have been slipped in.

Mike

[Killratio]

Hi Mike,

Good to see another of the Three Heretics weigh in. If you have any specific ones you are chasing, give me a yell. Often they are misfiled ie, 2 Naval under 2 Squadron etc. I can scan through the others on Microfilm to try to pick them up…if you haven’t looked already…just a thought.

Your point is well made. Later record keepers (for instance those who did the “great burn” before leaving Flanders in 1919/20) seem to have been quite vicious in the clean up. Only that which was “interesting” was kept in many cases.

A great shame, particularly given the modern predisposition towards “Topgun”, “blood trails” and “confirmed kills”. It’s the old story, 95% boredom, 5% sheer terror. Unfortunately 99% of the 95% contained in reports was consigned to Guy Fawlkes night!! So we are left with an impression that the Terror was the main event.

Phil,

I thought I’d flush out you BoB types!!

HealDav,

I take it Intel Officers were not overly popular to start with, why aggravate the situation.

Gareth,

Never seen a boring Soccer Match……slept through a few though…..

Regards

Darryl

[duckman]

Oooh, a bandwagon! can I join?

Right on, Darryl, an excellent summary. I tried to make some of these points in a thread a couple of weeks back, but I found that I keep knocking the *rant mode* switch, and the light gets washed out by the heat. (Damn those cockpit ergonomics!)

The value of all these reports lies in understanding what they meant to the people collecting them. Since the forces involved were interested in winning the war, not the historical arguments that the air war would spawn, it's hardly surprising that the surviving reports don't quite fit what we would have in an ideal world.

To the British, the number of photos returned by observers, the number of German recce missions forced away from their target etc are much more meaningful numbers for measuring their performance. It's just not as sexy.

And if your "system" was, as maintained by some, complete twaddle, if it is consistent, you can still see developing trends. It doesn't really matter whether you overclaim by 1% or 100%. If one sees that over a period your losses (which you DO know) have dropped by say 20% and your claims have increased similarly, its a pretty fair indication you are doing rather better than you were. Even if the absolute accuracy of the numbers is low, if they are consistent they are, collectively, meaningful. I'm sure, in that sense, Trenchard cared about as much as I do whether Billy Bishop, Mick Mannock or someone else was the top scoring ace. I.E. Not very much at all....

[Killratio]

Duckman,

Hop right aboard, although I fear it is more a trio or quartet wagon...but I digress.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has been relying on your theory of trends for years. They have turned "Garbage In : Useful (???) Information Out " into a mantra but again...I digress.

Holding true to course for a moment...the thought that someone else out there doesn't give a hoot who scored the highest is very refreshing. It does make good press (and a part of me, at least, is not entirely revolted at the publishing of a list of confirmed kills, like it was a cricket score) but one man's share of 7500 or 10000 or 5000 or whatever it was really not a big deal. The Baron himself got 80 out of 7500 German confirmed...but did the amount of fabric, metal, flesh and even cameras, he personally burned make a difference OF ITSELF to the course of the war as a whole? I think not.

The Aces were at worst a curiosity, at best a morale booster. Those who combined the feat with leadership, tutoring by example and courage added much more.

HealDav,

Another thought on your accuracy point (which is my favourite bugbear):

I remember well the story of one soldier at Long Tan. He described in great detail how he and his mate fought side by side throughout the action, going into great detail. His mate, when asked, detailed exactly how on that memorable day, he had been asigned to a different Company and had seen almost no action at all. I think it is retold in Terry Burstall's book??

If given the slightest provocation I shall relate my theories of what later became known as "Situational Awareness" but I warn you, you will regret it

regards

Darryl

[Guest Pete Wood]

Were 'British' airmen, in some way, encouraged to make claims?

Unlike German pilots, a certain number of claims did not mean an automatic medal award, for a British pilot, did it?

So what was the incentive for British pilots to make a claim? Did it improve their 'standing' in the mess, or further their chances of promotion etc....??

[Killratio]

RT,

Is a footballer encouraged to score goals? Of course they were encouraged, it was their job. A few of the Aces (notably Mannock, I believe) did not put in claims for aeroplanes that their "pupils" finished off. Generally however you recorded what you saw and did.

Many CiTARs however do not make a "claim" as such. "the HA spun away, apparently out of control". Even the Eclesiastical One, in his June sojourn, did not actually "claim" a couple that were awarded to him. Some guys watched their score carefully, others just did the job.

Rather the question is usually framed "Were they encouraged to OVER-claim?"

Again, depends on the definition of over-claim. Also depends on the Squadron and the year. Alex Revell once told me that 56 were "keen" or something similar. Does this mean however that they over claimed, or does it just mean that they reported more strictly what happened.

As I have said, there is no question that the system drifted toward scoring later on...but only toward.

regards

Darryl

[MikeW]

Darryl,

Sic vos non vobis

I'd forgotten that. How time flies.

I've emailed you separately with the "Contact reports" that I'm missing.

Mike

[Killratio]

Mike,

"Sic vos non vobis"

Ah the exquisite altruism of it all!!!

I had'nt forgotten but then I live by the creed... "Mendacem Memorem esse oportet"

I received your email today, I'll hunt them up tonight

regards

Darryl

PS, If I am permitted one more lapse into pompous mode...you are correct, Tempus Fugit

[duckman]

"Thus you are not you?" - How very existential

Can we get a translation for people whose Latin is limited to "Ignoramus"? Anyway should it not be "Sic Voß non vobis?"

Darryl - I've not totted it up, but allowing for the odd (non-POW) survivor but factoring in the number of 2-seaters, I would guess the Baron was responsible for "removing" perhaps 130 men from the Allied Order of Battle, plus a considerable quantity of materiél. A good shoot from an RE8 could to the same material damage in an hour directing a 60 pounder battery.

But the words "noble", "heroic" or "chivalrous" don't apply there.

[Killratio]

Duckman,

Actually it is literally “Thus you (labour) not for yourselves”. ie, working for other people’s benefit. It is the motto of the “Three Heretics”, myself and Mike being two of.

We specialized for a while, a few years back, in being “stoned” by the moral majority who read their aviation history from Arch Whitehouse, Quentin Reynolds, Steven Longstreet and Biggles.

Once discussions got heated in relation to “The Ecclesiastically Named Gentleman” and his June sojourn, it all got a bit hard and we retired to our respective bunkers to write the aviation equivalent of "smug little treatises on the value of a planned political economy” (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

Tempus Fugit is, of course, Time Flies.

Mendacem Memorem esse Oportet : One needs a good memory to be a good liar.

N.B. Should you continue to make such slanderous suggestions re the worth of The Baron relative to a single RE8 mission, it is quite possible that we will be forced to come out of our bunkers and induct you as a fourth Heretic.

Very best

Darryl

(Yes, it probably should be the German “double S”….. I had heard that Voss was ill on the fateful day…. A hangover from Bruno Loezer’s PLM party in Berlin the night before, if I remember Quentin’s excellent reference work correctly.)

[BlackSeptember1918]

I've heard about this " gathering of eagles " in the Bristol Hotel ( strange name for a Berlin hotel ? ) on the last night of Voss's leave . Barry Diggens dosen't seem to think this could or did happen on that night . But like most things , one is never going to know for sure I guess .

I wouldn't blame Werner if he did . Seems to me if I had made it through any day of patrols , I would have thought to myself " o.k....i have at least 12 more hours to live ....what should i do with it ?....I know !..I'll go and get drunk "....ofcourse that only holds true if you weren't going out drinking with Charles Nungesser !.

Phil.

[Killratio]

Oh Phil, Phil, Phil,

You were away the day they did Sarcasm 101, weren’t you??

To wax Heretical for a moment…

The party is a complete fiction cooked up by the fertile imagination of Quentin Reynolds. The PLM in question was apparently awarded 2 months after Voss’ death. It was also practically impossible for Voss to travel the 400 or so miles to the front in the time allowed. Further his brother (s?) were at the aerodrome with his father waiting for him to start leave that day. The story has been repeated from time to time in print, on the strength of Quentin’s word. (I think Longstreet picked it up as well?)

This demonstrates adequately that MikeW’s and my unreasonable bias towards consulting “original documents” and actual “Squadron Records” and relying on facts, is so much tosh. Were it not for people like us, these wonderful stories would be left unmolested to entertain and educate for generations to come…..

I haven’t read Diggen’s take on it yet…on my to do list.

Best regards

Darryl

[Grovetown]

My own tuppenny worth of heresy too, if that's alright...

The more and more time I spend on Corps flying, the less and less interested I become in scouts. As much mentioned above, the main purpose of army flying was observation; with air fighting an ancillary activity designed to facilitate or impede it.

A 2-seater crew could not over-state their day’s work, because either the photos were taken or they were not. And windy teams were quickly weeded out as it became all too readily apparent whether they had been where they were sent, and had done as ordered.

The idea that one could beetle off by oneself and return to regale the mess with amazing solo deeds (naming no names and I don’t care about him anyway) was just impossible in the above context.

Given the nature of the craft, their vulnerability and the lack of preparedness of many 2-seater crews, their stoicism and commitment to stay on task – unlike those who could pick and choose their actions as they saw fit – was outstanding.

And didn’t the higher-ups have a schizophrenic attitude to it as well? One reads of the many urgent and pressing orders to achieve obs, disruption and reconnaissance which were effectively third party prepared suicide notes. And yet when it came to handing out the “pretty things from the shop” (Darryl, if you like the gorier bits of MP, League of Gentlemen will leave you speechless); corps crews were conspicuously undervalued in comparison to their (ostensibly) more glamorous colleagues.

I suppose one shouldn’t be surprised: in the second outing (mixing eras) I’ve always been more struck by the exploits and stoicism of Bomber Command (ignoring the arguments over strategic value, morality etc) than any amount of BoB hi-jinks. 19 VCs to BC seems paltry. And that’s from someone who, depending on whether I turn left or right in the morning, drives past Kenley war graves every other trip.

(Can’t also help a dark cynical laugh every time someone over-stresses twenty-five in Memphis Belle too).

Facta non verba

Rgds,

[duckman]

Mendacem Memorem esse Oportet : One needs a good memory to be a good liar.

That's one for the memory banks. Thanks for the translations. It's now more than twenty years since I made up dirty limericks in Latin to fill in class time. Now trying to remember the one about he unfortunate Rex that ends "De minimus non curat lex."

I'm assuming your insurgency was at that "other place", home of TG56 and other luminaries? I'll troll Scott's archive and read the whole sorry tale some time (sounds like I'll need strengthening medicine to face it, and they don't like me drinking and "working". ). Get ready to squish up a bit. I'll see you in the bunker when I've finished arming myself (with data).

* * *Genuine offer * * *: Free, unusual, genuine WW1-era souvenir for anyone who can come up with a "do-able" way of assessing recce performance - over time within an Air Service, or comparing Air Services at any given time.

Anas Homunculus

PS: Didn't Voss just take the ICE to Brussels? That only took a couple of hours when I did it. Problem?

[Killratio]

Anas Homunculus

(although, given at least average height, surely Homo Anas???)

COMPARISON OF CORPS SQNS.

Each Squadron submitted a Daily Summary of Work.

For the Corps Squadrons this summarised Photographs, Recon, Artillery Shoots etc and classified them as “Successful” or “Unsuccessful” (numbers of each noted.) These figures often made it to “Comic Cuts” ie, The Communiques

Details of highlighted actions could be attached. Often, it seems, congratulatory messages from Infantry, Artillery or other units were attached as well. CiTAR copies detailing “contacts” as well as claims also seem to have been attached on a regular(?) basis. So you will see a signal from Battery “A” which is along the lines of “Thank you for your excellent direction last evening in the course of our successful bombardment of German battery at Beaumont”.

Comparisons between these summaries may well give you the benchmark you are looking for, at least from the viewpoint of the Squadron as to what was “successful”.

I don’t have the PRO (NA) references handy. Some are contained in AIR1 1216-1228.

I do have a lot of data on 3 AFC and would be happy to send a copy over. It seems to have been prepared from these daily summaries amongst other things.

As to Voss, I would have thought that there would be very little Ice around in September 1917 so unsure of your point. Were the Brussell Sprouts in the Aerodrome Garden frozen that day?? (I have not yet consulted my weather records)

Regards

Darryl