MovieChat Forums > Flyboys (2006) Discussion > Why using american volunteers?

Why using american volunteers?

posted 13 years ago by Ecthelion2005
8 replies | jump to latest

Something i dont understand is why the french airforce uses american volunteers for this air unit. They had no air skills whatsoever that merits them to be pilots.
Is not that they are pilots already and have some experience in the air.Some of them are even pretty awful.
Why just dont use french men? Makes no sense.

[–] RbSnedlap 13 years ago

Well, If your fighting a war, taking huge casualties and some foreigners turn up and actually WANT to fight for you, are you going to say no to them?

"Any plan that involves losing your hat is a BAD plan.""

[–] Ecthelion2005 13 years ago

I wont use them as a fighter pilots but put them in the infantry. Planes are to expensive to put anyone there be them nationals or foreigners.
You will want the best men for this rare and sofisticated, in 1914, machine.

[–] rheinsteinb 13 years ago

In the early years of the war, France and Britain sought ways to bring America into the war and Germany ways to keep America out. The reason the Lafayette Escadrille was formed was to create publicity and help persuade America to abandon its neutrality and join the fight. The unit created enough publicity that another American unit, the Lafayette Flying Corp, was also formed.

Airplanes were not used in combat in the early part of the war. The first true combat plane was the mid-1915 Fokker Eindecker. French and British pilots became known as Fokker Fodder. The Fokker Scourge continued until early 1916 when the French and British deployed their own combat planes. The Lafayette Escadrille was not deployed until April of that year.

[–] RbSnedlap 13 years ago

I wont use them as a fighter pilots but put them in the infantry. Planes are to expensive to put anyone there be them nationals or foreigners.
You will want the best men for this rare and sofisticated, in 1914, machine.

A lot of other volunteers WERE in the infantry, some transferring to the various air corps later, the thing is though, in 1914-18 terms a combat aircraft cost about the same as a single artillery shell so planes tended to be treated as ammunition.

Airplanes were not used in combat in the early part of the war. The first true combat plane was the mid-1915 Fokker Eindecker. French and British pilots became known as Fokker Fodder. The Fokker Scourge continued until early 1916 when the French and British deployed their own combat planes. The Lafayette Escadrille was not deployed until April of that year.

Not true I`m afraid, from the outset aircraft were used for combat, a number of `pusher` types had been developed with air combat in mind and most types in use were fitted with some type of machine gun mount from a very early stage in the war.
Things did get a bit more serious though by mid-1915 when the first planes that could shoot forwards without shooting off the propeller appeared!

"Any plan that involves losing your hat is a BAD plan.""

[–] rheinsteinb 13 years ago

While it is true that various planes had machines guns added as an afterthought, with poor results, the Eindecker is regarded as the first true fighter aircraft. See, e.g., A History of Fighter Aircraft
http://www.usaww1.com/World_War_1_Fighter_Planes.php4

I'm also curious about the source of your information that "a combat aircraft cost about the same as a single artillery shell." My understanding is that a typical British artillery shell in the Great War cost about £22, and the British used in excess of 170 million of them. A fully equipped plane was typically $5,000 to $8,000. The engine alone was the better part of $1,000.

[–] RbSnedlap 13 years ago

While it is true that various planes had machines guns added as an afterthought, with poor results, the Eindecker is regarded as the first true fighter aircraft. See, e.g., A History of Fighter Aircraft
http://www.usaww1.com/World_War_1_Fighter_Planes.php4

It all depends on how you define `Fighter Aircraft`.
My assertion is that purpose built combat types were in service before the appearance of the Fokker EIII which was, at best an indifferent single-seat scout type which had the sole advantage of being the first plane to be equipped with a working interrupter gear.
Consider this Vickers type from 1913 as an example of what was already available
.http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_fb-1.php
This is a purpose-built combat plane designed from the outset to carry a gun not one that`s just had it added as an afterthought.
It was however something of a failure but they continued development.
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_fb-2.php
and
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_fb-3.php
By 1914 it had evolved in to this,
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_fb-5.php
There were other, similar types of plane developed by, for example the Sopwith company
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/sopwith_gunbus.php
and in France by the Voisin brothers
http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/voisin_la.php.

Still looking for relative cost references, I suspect you are quoting costs for prototypes.

"Any plan that involves losing your hat is a BAD plan.""

[–] dragon_x 12 years ago

I wont use them as a fighter pilots but put them in the infantry. Planes are to expensive to put anyone there be them nationals or foreigners.
You will want the best men for this rare and sofisticated, in 1914, machine.

Ummm... this is like 1914, right? The first (arguably?) controlled flight was only done a few years earlier - in 1906, on the Outter Banks (OBX) NC. There were not all that many pilots back then. If you could buy your own plane (death trap?) and you were crazy, skilled or lucky enough - you probably would live long enough to learn and I'm sure there were trainers back then, but that was the very dawn of air to ground combat and air to air combat ... and like other's said, they were often used only as scouts/recon (though that was pretty important).

Also keep in mind, the plan could be a two seater - so the second person - could be a co pilot, gunner, spotter, 'navigator' if they even had that back then ... etc. Someone who's a good shot with a rifle or machine gun, could in theory be put in the back of a prop plane to drop bombs and shoot other arial target, while the pilot concentrates on keeping them alive, flying in formation, etc....

Now the reason I post is because when I wanted to fly, I naturally wanted to fly the fastest, coolest planes around - yep the jets - either a F15 Eagle, an F16 Falcon or maybe even an older F4 Phantom - jet fighter. I did apply and I did have a minor connection, but at the time they would only take someone with 20/20 vision or better (uncorrected). My father actually wanted to fly to and he probably could have --- had be been a little less forthcoming about his hayfever/allergies.... I think the had the better eye site when he was young, so that was not an issue against him.

So as aviation evolved and more people could apply or wanted to apply and the tactics became more clear (and the speed increased) - the aviators (military, private, etc...) would weed out more of the people who were "not good enough".

I dont know about a WWI prop plane costing less than an artillery shell - maybe the biggest shells (how big were they back then?) or maybe the plane + a few bombs was as effect as $8,000 USD in shells? Either way I bet there were a lot in the military that did not initially see the advantage of the platform - much like Tanks were slow to start in WWI, but then the officers saw certain tactical advantages... and well of course they unleashed much worse as WWI was the dawn of chemical warfare - IIRC.

[–] Kawada_Kira 13 years ago

Because they needed all the help they could get. Why is an American any worse than a Frenchman for being a pilot? Anyone of any nationality can be trained for it. And among all nationalities, there will be people who are good at it and people who suck at it.

Sig under construction