Some years ago we had a robust discussion on this topic. (I have done numerous searches and can’t find it).
I think Martini Enfield raised the point about the policy of the RFC suggesting that pilots would abandon aircraft that may be saved to save their own neck. I know Johnny LA joined in.
My argument at the time was that parachutes were simply too bulky and heavy for the aircraft of the time. I think the argument didn’t go much further. (Apart from me being criticised).
Just to get the sparks flying again, I have finished reading a book called “Marked for Death” which is basically about airmen in the Great War. It devotes a complete chapter to the “no parachute” argument rather than the normal few lines or paragraphs.
The book takes the viewpoint of Gould Lee, a fighter pilot from the Great War who ended up as an air vice marshall in the RAF. He was an advocate of parachutes.
In his position he searched for any evidence of the position as in a written direction. There was none-or none that existed at the time the search was conducted. Parachutes were used by the observers in observation balloons . There is evidence that the top brass did not want parachutes. Yet they readily allowed them for spies to be dropped into occupied territory.
However, they were large and bulky and did not fit neatly into a fighter. They were far different to parachutes of today. They had to have an eight foot cable to slide long before the parachute opened and that had to be placed outside the cockpit. In a biplane their was a huge chance of getting caught in the rear section of the plane.
However, the author also suggests that a big problem was the attitude of the pilots of the time who were quite resistant to any protective gear such as goggles, helmets and heated flying gear. They would not wish to be seen as a sissy in the squadron by the other members for taking a parachute with them.
Whilst I don’t agree with all the arguments it is certainly worth considering.
Len Deighton’s “Blood, Tears and Folly - An Objective Look At World War II” states that:
“German flyers were equipped by early 1917 with electrically heated clothing, constantly improved instruments and parachutes.
The parachute was a device the British command resisted on the grounds that providing them would lower morale. The tacit implication was that with them British flyers would jump to safety rather than fight. Not until 1935 did the RAF seriously test parachutes.”
To illustrate the bulk of the early parachute systems here is a photo of Tiny Broadwick, parachuting pioneer and a legendary figure to skydivers. She was only 5 feet tall (hence the nickname) so the pack wouldn’t look quite so large on a man but it’s still pretty bulky and several inches thick. Note that the harness is not a set of straps to go around the torso and legs but more like a vest or coat with the container attached to the back. There are straps sewn to the fabric for reinforcement.
Here is a photo of Tiny getting ready to board the jump plane. Visible in the photo is the static line, which I assume is what Cicero meant with this sentence:
Here and here are photos of rigs from a few years later. One has a ripcord for manual deployment after bailing out. The Type ‘A’ was used by the Army. These are starting to look like modern gear although they’re still a lot bulkier. The main difference- there’s only one parachute. No reserve canopies on these rigs.
I met a very elderly English pilot of WWI. Which since most only lasted a few weeks was itself amazing. He knew the Germans had parachutes, but felt his fellows just didn’t expect them.
I mostly remember his telling me about the large wooden handles used to steer the plane. Which were about it as far as high-tech was concerned.
Of course the British pilots might have lasted longer than six weeks had their superiors adopted parachutes* et al*.
Of course, luck meant some survived more times than others. Recently I read of the once famous dancer Vernon Castle, who survived more than 300 combat missions, then was sent over out of harm’s way to train American pilots in 1917.
He died at Fort Worth in 1918 from a stalled engine.
Thanks Samclem. I searched for a long time and found lots of threads I never knew existed.
Maybe there could be a song…“Is it the thread you’re looking for…because I didn’t have a clue” Claverhouse, another point is more casualties were caused in the RFC by accidents than in combat. Flying (and being an observer) was extremely dangerous.
Also the thinking of the time was that the machine was to inflict as much damage as possible on the enemy. Aircraft were expensive. Plenty of people lining up to be pilots.
And finally, the losses in Air Force (normally part of the Army until later in the war- there was a Naval Service as well) were miniscule compared to the slaughter on the ground- I can’t find the stats in the book quickly but I think it was (for the UK and Empire) around 6000 for the war. The first day of the Somme gave them 63,000 casualties.
