#4494073 - 10/22/19 02:57 PM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
Hasse
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
|
A while ago, we had a short discussion on this very topic in our current DID thread. To sum it up, NCO pilots were very common in all the air services of the Great War era, except the British (there were some) and the American (there were none).
Generally speaking, the societies of the early 20th century were frightfully class-conscious. But some countries seem to have taken it much farther than others. IMO, it's very interesting that in some ways, the British society was actually less democratic than the German one of the 1910s, although it's now very common to think of Imperial Germany as an authoritarian military society. For example, all German males could vote in elections. In Britain, it was a different matter. You could vote only if you owned a certain amount of property. It took until 1918 to change the legislation.
There was definitely plenty of hypocrisy to share between all the belligerents, when you contrast the high ideals presented in their propaganda with the actual social conditions of their peoples.
"Upon my word I've had as much excitement on a car as in the air, especially since the R.F.C. have had women drivers."
James McCudden, Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps
|
|
|
#4494076 - 10/22/19 03:05 PM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 4,879
RAF_Louvert
BOC President; Pilot Extraordinaire; Humble Man
|
BOC President; Pilot Extraordinaire; Humble Man
Senior Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 4,879
L'Etoile du Nord
|
. So true Hasse, so very true. Thanks for chiming in here. And I wonder how many times over the years we've had this very discussion. It's always a lively one. One minor correction, the Americans did have a handful of NCO pilots, but none served in combat as they were all relegated to repair squadrons. .
|
|
|
#4494083 - 10/22/19 03:26 PM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: RAF_Louvert]
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
Hasse
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,743
|
. One minor correction, the Americans did have a handful of NCO pilots, but none served in combat as they were all relegated to repair squadrons.
I stand corrected. For learning about such details, this forum is the best (IMHO).
"Upon my word I've had as much excitement on a car as in the air, especially since the R.F.C. have had women drivers."
James McCudden, Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps
|
|
|
#4494181 - 10/23/19 12:19 AM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 740
Ace_Pilto
Livestreamer/YouTuber
|
Livestreamer/YouTuber
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 740
Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
|
In Australia we are very intolerant of people who "put on airs". Tall poppies get cut down to size very quickly here so it would make sense to me that our units were more "democratic" for cultural reasons. Probably partly to colonial heritage but also because Australia was a very unforgiving place back in those days. Being a pompous idiot and not listening to reason and experience in an environment where you can walk for days without finding water... well you can see how that would end.
Last edited by Ace_Pilto; 10/23/19 12:20 AM.
Let's pretend I got the BWOC badge to embed here.
Wenn ihr sieg im deine Kampf selbst gegen, wirst stark wie Stahl sein. "The best techniques are passed on by the survivors." - Gaiden Shinji
|
|
|
#4494245 - 10/23/19 01:37 PM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 79
Crofty
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 79
UK
|
An interesting conversation indeed. I think it would be good to know on what basis the members of 85 squadron rejected (or should that be objected) to James McCudden becoming the CO. Was it based on their perceived concern as to leadership skills, or that they considered him an 'oik' and not worthy. Either way that nothing was done by the 'higher ups' suggests connivance on their part or at least a lack of leadership themselves, in that they allowed a load of Pilot Officers and Lieutenants to decide who will or won't lead them.
Let's not delude ourselves though that this is something that stopped happening 100 years ago, it's happening still, in just about every facet of life. Look at who gets in to Oxford and Cambridge (no matter what 'Stormzy' might try and do otherwise), or who gets into Sandhurst. It's not impossible for the lower classes to get in, but having attended public school clearly gives you an advantage for no tangible reason at all.
That someone's upbringing and social standing should play any part in deciding their worthiness for a particular role is abhorrent but is the basis of the pyramid class system we continue to live in.
So, we take off in ten minutes, we're in the air for twenty minutes, which means we should be dead by twenty five to ten.
|
|
|
#4494249 - 10/23/19 02:18 PM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 4,879
RAF_Louvert
BOC President; Pilot Extraordinaire; Humble Man
|
BOC President; Pilot Extraordinaire; Humble Man
Senior Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 4,879
L'Etoile du Nord
|
|
|
|
#4494305 - 10/23/19 10:13 PM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,105
Raine
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,105
New Brunswick, Canada
|
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, but I think we are in danger of bringing a 21st-century sensibility to the dawn of the 20th century. I think we have to consider the class distinctions of the First World War in terms of intimate solitudes. This was a time when one of the better career options for working-class men and women was to be "in service." Let's examine that dynamic because it sheds some light on the officer-NCO relationship as it evolved in the British Army.
Imagine yourself as the head of the household with several servants. While far from a universal sentiment, the middle to upper classes, had a sense of "noblesse oblige." The done thing was to treat one servants with a mixture of decency and firmness. Being overly familiar was an invitation to disrespect and embarrassment. The families who employed servants were not ogres, nor were they fools (in many cases, by the late 19th century the employing family was upwardly mobile and only a generation or two removed from being in service themselves). From time to time, they could share a friendly word or a personal insight with a household servant. But they always knew that if one "crossed the line," they would be the subject of whispers below stairs and their authority in the household would be eroded.
Now, imagine yourself as a servant in that same household. Among the household staff (if the household was wealthy enough to have more than one servant), there was a pecking order. Even downstairs, "class distinctions" applied. There was pride in one's trade. And in many cases, there was a genuine loyalty towards the family that one served.
This same dynamic has long carried into the British Army. Officers and NCOs generally work well together, but there is the same familiar distance between them. Class barriers have certainly broken down in the last 70 years, but the intimate solitudes of the 19th-century household survive in the traditions of the officers' mess and the sergeants' and warrant officers' mess. When it comes to dining arrangements, an officer knows that the sergeants' mess is their holy ground and may be entered only by invitation (unless one is the orderly officer on duty). The senior NCOs must have the freedom to talk openly there and to be able to discuss their officers without fear of repercussion. The officers must have the confidence in their sergeants major to know that lines will not be crossed.
Any good officer should have the greatest of respect for the veteran NCO, and should seek his advice openly. Any good NCO should realise that the officer bears accountabilities greater than his own, but that both the officer and the men under that NCO require that the NCO provide solid and respectful advice and technical expertise. It is very easy to mess up this relationship, but when it is well established. It is a wonderful thing in practice. In reading about the RFC in the First World War, you see this relationship often when pilots write about their maintenance crew or when the members of the maintenance crew speak of their pilots.
When this system was exported to France with the RFC there were consequences that had not been anticipated. Sergeant pilots naturally messed with their fellow senior NCOs. But those senior NCOs were by and large skilled tradesmen employed as mechanics, riggers, et cetera. The poor NCO pilots had few if any peers with whom they could share their experiences in the air. To the officers, inviting the NCO pilots into the officers mess would be an unthinkable crossing of the line. Nothing in the normal dynamics of Army life anticipated this problem. The solution ultimately was to minimise the number of NCO pilots in combat squadrons. I believe that the idea that the officers looked down on NCO pilots as pilots is generally wrong. But they could not abandon their upbringing enough to disregard rank. And while NCO pilots may have bemoaned the lack of company in the sergeants' mess, I have never read of a British NCO pilot expecting or wanting to dine in the officers' mess. That would have been "not on."
Is this a class problem? Yes, but not exclusively.
As for the refusal by pilots of 85 Squadron to accept McCudden as their CO, I do not see this as a comment on McCudden's social standing. McCudden was well-known to be a solo act. The men of 85 Squadron needed and wanted a true leader. In the end, they chose Mannock – despite being born in barracks and a vocal socialist. It is clear that Mannock's reputation as a leader and as a developer of competent pilots motivated their choice. Perhaps the Old Etonians would have little desire to talk politics with Mannock over a drink, but they knew he was the man to bring them success and keep them alive.
The role played by military life in changing the social structures within the United Kingdom is a fascinating tale. We should not reduce it to a 21st-century cartoon image of posh officers looking down their noses at competent NCOs. Ironically, some of the most stuck-up officers I have read about were those in higher commands in the USAS.
|
|
|
#4494329 - 10/24/19 03:11 AM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: Raine]
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
DukeIronHand
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,532
High over the Front
|
As for the refusal by pilots of 85 Squadron to accept McCudden as their CO, I do not see this as a comment on McCudden's social standing. McCudden was well-known to be a solo act. The men of 85 Squadron needed and wanted a true leader. In the end, they chose Mannock – despite being born in barracks and a vocal socialist. It is clear that Mannock's reputation as a leader and as a developer of competent pilots motivated their choice. Perhaps the Old Etonians would have little desire to talk politics with Mannock over a drink, but they knew he was the man to bring them success and keep them alive.
This paragraph struck me as odd so I did some checking to get dates and you may make of it what you will. First though McCudden was renowned and revered as a Flight Leader during his time with 56. Going by memory his Flight had the most confirmed victories and the fewest losses in the Squadron under his leadership. I’m not sure where the “solo act” thing is coming from. If you are referring to his solo flights to destroy high flying German two-seaters that was a mission given 56 by HQ mainly, I think, because of the high skill level of 56 and the Se5. Other pilots in 56 were assigned to these solo jobs also. He was just, by far, the most successful at it (and volunteered for them when not flying with his flight) due to a combination of skill and mechanical aptitude. As far as I am aware he was not the Albert Ball type flying over the lines on his own. If you have information otherwise I’d be curious. The above is from memory. Now the dates I looked up. 85 went to France in May 1918 under the command of Major William Bishop who was the biggest soloist in the history of the RFC. Mannock (McCudden?) was ordered to take over from Bishop who had claimed 25 victories (IIRC) in a month and did so on 18 June 1918. At this time McCudden was an instructor in England. McCudden did receive orders for 60 Squadron and died 9 July while in route there. In casual checking I can find no reference of McCudden and 85 but I will look as time permits.
|
|
|
#4494330 - 10/24/19 03:33 AM
Re: OT: Treatment of NCO Pilots?
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,105
Raine
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,105
New Brunswick, Canada
|
Duke,
My comment was from memory, but I had to hit the books and find out what I was thinking of. I found the following...
Mac Grider, an American in 85, wrote in his diary: "The General came over and had tea with us and asked us who we wanted for CO. He wanted to send us McCudden but we don’t want him. He gets Huns himself but he doesn’t give anybody else a chance at them.… We asked for Micky Mannock who is a flight commander in 74. He’s got around sixty Huns and was at London Colney when we were, in January. He wanted to take the three of us out with him in February but we weren’t thru at Turnberry. They say that he’s the best patrol leader at the front — plans his squadron shows a day in advance and rehearses them on the ground. He plans every manoeuvre like a chess player and has every man at a certain place at a certain time to do a certain thing, and raises merry hell if anyone falls down on his job."
Odd, given that Grider got along with his old boss -- the ultimate "solo act," Bishop -- and Grider was probably unfair to McCudden. But that's what I was thinking of. My point was that they didn't seem to turn McCudden down because of his social status - his background and Mannock's were pretty much identical.
|
|
|
|
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|