"Pilot experience, young snotty on the squadron." Topic

Hello all, some help, if you can,

My own WW1 air rules, knowm as 'Johns Wings of Blue Max War, 'arry Tate' (betraying their roots!) now have a campaign system, whereby new pilots arrive at squadrons, clamber into their 1/72 Plastic Airfix/Heller/Rodin/Revell, mount, and, via the system, move up experience levels, dependent on numbers of flights/kills/etc. I currently have 4 levels, being, novice, experienced, seasoned, and ace. I may add another level in there yet, as this is all in the 'working up' stage.

My question is this, In WW1, what was the prior experience level of new pilots in French, British, American, and German service? would all new recruits be 'novice' I doubt there were many flying clubs around, like the Germans used prior to WW2, to get new pilots experienced, and by-pass the allies restrictions on them post WW1.

Did it vary between countries? or should all new boys, under my system, be classed as 'novice'?

Many thanks for any help you could give.

John

Flying is one thing, but flying under combat conditions is an entirely different thing. That can only really be gleaned from experience and survival. I'd say almost all pilots start as a Novice.

Novices, no doubt about it!

Yep, all novices.

The Brits were still training pilots in Longhorns for the first years of the war because more modern aircraft were too valuable to be trusted to trainee pilots, leading to several deaths in training.

As far as I understand it, pilots were sent to the front as soon as they could be relied upon to take off, navigate, and land. All other training, in tactics and the like, didn't figure much until late in the war – but given that all tactics were 'new' by the virtue of no aerial warfare prior to WW1, until tried and tested, what could they teach anyone anyway.

Later in the war, veterans were posted to training posts and the quality of training increased but, by then, with veteran pilots all over the place, new pilots were novices in direct comparison to the established flyers, and the length of training wasn't dramatically increased (to my knowledge).

Yes, all novices. Probably at certain times, incoming British pilots would be even worse, but that's not going to be much fun to play.

I suspected as much, but thought I'd pick the brains of people cleverer than me, which is the majority of you!

Hmmmmm, as the above seems Brito-centrict, would it be the same for the other protaganists? the Americans, arriving late to the party, would they still arrive on the Western front as novices? did the French or Germans, have any advantages, or was the learning curve really tightly linked into the combat experience for everyone?

Thanks again, great information

John

I thought I'd better get this in before I'm doghoused, for daring to disagree with an untouchable on the Nappy boards! hahahahahahaha!

John

I believe length of training varied depending on whether they brought a drum along….

YouTube link

British pilot training fell precipitously mid-war. It got to the point that new pilots knew nothing fancier than coordinated level turns (you turn a lot harder than that if you want to survive a dogfight). Those pilots went straight into combat because losses were so severe.

Emckenny, that's horrifying, and, as those pilots must've had such a high mortality rate, due to the inexperience, they then just added to the losses.

What I'm now after, is the story for the other nations. Was it the same story? Poor bastards.

John.

I have the big Flying Machine Press histories for France, I'll try to remember to look and see if they talk about any training issues there. Offhand, France and Germany seemed pretty constant; the US when it entered had a core of veterans who'd served with France and a bunch of newbies, but I'd say they were better than the low point of British training.

Boy wundyr, that would be great, thank you in advance for any help you could offer with the other nations. Your comments on the Americans seem valid, I looked up some US pilots diaries, etc, and they're 'previous' would have seem to have helped, I may give them a dice roll, before they start the campaign, in asserting the starting level of new US pilots.

So far then, British start as Novice, US, Dice roll, French and German, as yet undecided. This is all great stuff, thank you all so much for your help, my crappy little set of rules has already got some fine researchers!

John

bbriarcliffe,
The differentiation in my rules means that as pilots improve, they get to perform better maneuvers in the aircraft, their shooting is slightly better, they clear gun jams faster, there is a rule whereby an aircraft can 'tail' another, this is dependent on the skil level of the 'tailer' and 'tailee' and a dice-roll, the dice-roll number to get, dependent on the respective skills, i.e an 'Ace' needing a lower number to get on the tail of a 'Novice' and stay there, than the other way round. They are by no means a complex set of rules, I thought they, by the very subject matter, should be fast and furious!

John

We take a different approach. As our game requires that you "fly" the plane (it is a flight sim), the player is his own limitation. Some players never improve beyond "novice", because their spatial relationships capacity is lacking. Others are already "ring-tailed killers" before they "go up" for the first time. Their subsequent learning curve is very short. As it is in life….

True, you don't "fly" the plane vis-a-vis from a cockpit with hands on controls. But the movement stands, models clipped to the altitude poles (fully articulated to produce climb, dive and roll), replace the "controls". Aside from the limitations of semi-sequential movement (turns divided into three "impulses" of c. 1.5 seconds duration each), it is as close to a "flight sim" as is likely possible. It is entirely different from card-based games. It is not a board game. How well the player makes the aircraft follow the intended path is the whole point of the design….

Really, it's fine, I found it very interesting, far above, (pardon the pun) my little tearaway of a game!

So, back to earth, French and Germans, come to their squadrons as novices?

John

Ahhhh, interesting, er, sorry, whats a 'B' or 'C' pilots, please excuse my ignorance.

John

B are armed two seaters and C are unarmed. Some B types were used as escorts as they had a single forward firing MG as well as a rear facing one. We aren't talking Bristol Fighter levels of performance but the pilots would face observation skills and some idea about shooting at other aircraft.

Great stuff, thank you all so much, I can use all this very useful information. So, pushing my luck, the French?

John

At the start of the war the French had a small core of experienced pilots but not combat experienced. I don't know about the level of basic flight training but it wasn't great. They used "penguins" to train pilots in basic flight controls. A penguin is an aircraft with shortened wings so it generates some lift but not enough to achieve proper flight. Have a search on You Tube there a number of documentaries you might find useful.

If you are playing a campaign with pilots who build careers, then randomizing for the rare "ring-tailed killer" is how I would do it. (Assuming that I am playing your card game, which rates pilots and gives bonuses to the better ones, and not mine.)

Boelcke is the "father" of aerial tactics, not because he picked it up learning how to fly, but because it was natural to him. All the great aces were naturals. Some picked up their craft faster than others. So some of them were "late bloomers" so to speak. The pilots who were really good fliers but mediocre marksmen were less inclined to run up impressive scores! Someone like Bishop or Richthofen more or less pointed their airplanes like an extension of the gun and did not engage in dogfights, but rather pounced on their kills without being seen. No fancy "pilot stuff" was required. They maintained energy, got the kill and got out with speed on their side.

So fancy maneuvers are actually overrated. They are "cinematic". But in the real world they were for showing off. Sometimes they were for escaping. Deliberate tailspins were resorted to by competent pilots by the mid war, instead of being seen as "the dreaded tailspin".

Once a pilot knows how to deliberately put his plane into a controlled spin, and recover from it, his confidence is secure and he can attempt anything. Almost no one knew, at the start of the war, that a tailspin is not a death sentence. Pilots on both sides were trained to avoid stalling at all costs and were not instructed in how to get out of the resulting tailspin, because even the instructors did not know how. That changed when pilots with combat experience showed how it is done.

great War Ace, interesting post, lots for me to chew over, and I take your point about some pilots bring natural fliers, others just more efficient 'predetors' My rule set has the facility for pilots to be good shots, and good fliers, as separate skills, so l could juggle the both to give better variance. I like this, thanks again.

John