Australian Fighter Aces

The word ace was a popular catchword of the day in Paris, particularly in relation to athletes, and was applied to anyone who had performed anything unusual. The latest Grand Prix winner was an ace; the newest cycling hero was an ace; popular jockeys were included in this newest category of headliners. It was natural that the word should be applied to Roland Garros.

This continued reference was caught by an American newspaperman in Paris who interpreted it to mean any pilot who had downed five enemy planes and in his next dispatch to New York, applied the reference to Roland Garros without bothering to explain how the Frenchman had run up his score 6r with what new weapon. It thus became the journalistic standard by which a French fighter pilot was rated.”

The French word l’as for ace, or the top of the pack, was soon adopted officially by the French Army. The title was awarded to every pilot who was officially recognised as having destroyed five (or more) enemy aircraft. Their destruction had to be confirmed by at least one witness or “other good evidence”. Several other countries also adopted the term, but it was never used officially by any of the original British air forces, and it is still not recognised by either the RAF or the RAAF. However, it is a universally recognised term and the above definition is the one which will be used in this series of articles.

Garros thus not only gave us the first fixed-gun fighter. He also demonstrated its effectiveness beyond doubt. It was this weapon and this weapon alone which led to the highly specialised role of the fighter pilot, and the long line of aces which followed. Without such an aircraft there would be no story to tell. We should now go back and trace the events leading up to this unique combination of man and machine.

Development of the Fighter

In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, each of the major powers had some form of an air force. However, none of the aircraft were armed, nor was any form of air-to-air combat foreseen. There was little difference between military or civilian aircraft or the way they were flown. Military aircraft were intended purely for reconnaissance and the duty of the military aviator was “to see, and not to fight”. In fact the real task of any pilot at that time was to keep his machine in the air. Any other duties were purely secondary.

If, in the early days of the war, aircraft from opposite sides did meet, they would either ignore each other completely, or the pilots might wave to each other before going on their separate ways. Their real enemies at that time were the weather, their own lack of skill, and the general weakness and unreliability of their machines.

As aerial reconnaissance developed and became more important, it was soon necessary to try and stop the enemy planes from crossing the lines, or if they did so, to try and chase them away. At first airmen started carrying personal weapons such as pistols, rifles and shotguns. These were readily available, were light in weight, and the most popular. With these handheld weapons the crews would take potshots at each other, but not with any recorded success. Some even tried hanging grenades below their machines, which hopefully would detonate on contact when dropped on an enemy aircraft.

Soon, however, machine guns were fitted on improvised mountings, but the added weight was a real problem. The gun also needed a lot of ammunition and this further added to the problem of weight and space. In most aircraft there was also no way that the gun could be fired forward or downward, as the propeller, wings, struts and various wires got in the way.

Inevitably as new aircraft came into service, machine guns soon became standard equipment, but some of the problems remained. In aircraft with the engine in front, the observer could only fire to the rear, and in an arc over the tail.

This gave some protection in a defensive role, but served no purpose in the offensive or attack role, which was the original need for arming the aircraft. With rear-engined or pusher-type machines, however, the position was quite different. The gun could be mounted in the nose firing forward free of all obstructions. The observer consequently had a wider and much safer field of fire. This type of installation was ideally suited for the attack role, and was the one eventually adopted.

As a matter of interest, in this respect, the French are credited with the first confirmed victory in this new style of warfare. As early as October 5, 1914, the observer of a Voisin (a pusher type) shot down a German Aviatik two-seater with a Hotchkiss machine gun mounted in the nose. Nevertheless remained a difficult and hazardous operation until a new breed of aircraft were designed and built.

Whether the engine was mounted at the rear or in front, there were problems common to both types. The gunner normally had to direct the pilot into a position where the guns could be brought to bear on the target. This usually required sudden and unexpected changes of direction which put a considerable strain on pilot and machine. Performance was still fairly marginal, and it would have been difficult enough in most cases to control the aircraft without the extra weight of gun and ammunition, or the drag induced by the exposed gun and other fittings. The net result was that it was usually extremely difficult to get close enough to the enemy to be effective. In many cases, the intended victim was able to pull away unscathed. However, as the object was really to chase the enemy away, so the results were to some extent successful, whether or not he was destroyed.

It was soon realised, of course, that most – if not all – of the problems would disappear if the pilot himself could aim the gun by just aiming the aircraft. Some way had to be found of mounting a fixed machine gun firing forward along the axis of flight, but without shooting off your own propeller. As early as December 1914 both the French and the British had begun to develop some form of mechanical device to interrupt or synchronise the rate of fire so the bullets would pass harmlessly through the propeller blades. By April 1915 they had actually perfected such a gear, but it had not yet been fitted to an operational aircraft.

In the meantime, other developments were going on, and it is claimed that the world’s first true fighter was the British-designed and built FB5 “Gunbus”. This was a two-seater pusher-type aircraft with a rear-mounted engine. The observer sat in front with a machine gun mounted in front of him on the nose, with the pilot behind him. The Gunbus began to arrive in France as early as February of 1915, but was soon replaced by the single-seater DH2. This was also a pusher type of similar design but was a single-seater. The pilot sat alone in the nose nacelle with a Lewis gun mounted in front of him. This gave an almost uninterrupted forward field of fire, and left the pilot completely in command of gun and machine. The aircraft itself was light and manoeuvrable and achieved a high rate of success from the start. In fact it was to be the standard fighter aircraft for the British for some time to come. At about the same time the Germans and French developed single-seater aircraft with the engine in the nose. These were fitted with guns facing forward on the upper wing in front of the pilot. They had to be angled upward to avoid the propeller, and the pilot needed to allow for the offset from his line of flight. This required a certain judgment and skill, but in general was fairly successful as a compromise. The best known, and perhaps the most successful of these was the French Nieuport II, with a Lewis gun mounted on the top wing. The sole duty of these new fighter aircraft (or “scouts” as they were known) was to protect the unarmed two-seater observation planes, and one or two were attached to each squadron for this purpose. The day of one-purpose squadrons, or units made up solely of the same type of aircraft was still very much in the future. The prime role of the Air Force was still reconnaissance, and everything evolved around this central mission. The early doctrine for the new fighters required them to provide “close escort” to the observation machines. For special missions, it was not unusual for one reconnaissance aircraft to be escorted by as many as 12 fighters formatting on it. Soon, however, some of the more aggressive pilots discovered it was better to go looking for the enemy than to wait for him to attack. Thus began the offensive tactics which the Allies adopted of carrying the battle over to the German side of the lines.

The next development occurred also in the early part of 1915. As described, the Frenchman Garros had metal deflectors fitted to his propeller. These were in the form of steel collars fitted to the boss at the foot of each blade, and the gun was fixed to fire forward through the airscrew disc. It appeared from his early and immediate success that a mechanical interrupter or synchronising gear might not now be required. However, there were some sceptics, and when he failed to return from a mission only three days after his fifth victory, it was immediately believed that he had shot away his propeller. In fact, this was not the case. He had been forced down through engine trouble and made a safe landing but in German territory. Before he was able to destroy the aircraft and special device, he was captured, and the aircraft was sent at once to Anthony Fokker. Fokker at that time was working on the design for a new fighter and at once realised the significance of the metal collars. Up to that time he had not himself thought of any arrangement for firing through the propeller blades but got to work immediately.

He did not think that the simple collars would be reliable or safe enough, and at once started to design a mechanical interrupter gear. By May 20 (only one month later) the new device was ready and fitted to one of his new Fokker M5K monoplanes. For the first time it was now possible for a stream of bullets to pass through the arc of the airscrew without hitting the blades. The machine was put straight into operation and the first score was made by Lieutenant Boelcke on June 30, 1915. This was a remarkable achievement in R. & D. by any standards and was to change the whole concept of fighter operations.

By early July of the same year the Germans were flying the Fokker E1 single-seater fighter which was the production model developed from the modified M5K described above. However, there were still some bugs, and the testing and development was taken over by the already well-known Lieutenant Immelman. His successes were even more devastating and dramatic than the early results by Garros. The era of the true single-seater fighter had begun.

Fortunately for the Allies, . the new Fokkers were only available in small numbers, as the DH2 and the rugged FE2, were the only aircraft capable of engaging the new German. In fact the Fokker E1 was not a particularly good aircraft except for its superior fire-power. Although already obsolete, the DH2 was still somewhat superior in performance, and the FE2 was to some extent able to hold the E1 in check.

Then fate intervened once again in the rapidly developing saga of the fighter. On August 11 one of the pilots flying the new Fokker E1 became lost. He ran out of petrol and landed intact in French territory, thus returning the earlier call by Garros. The effect was electric. The discovery that the Germans already had an operational aircraft fitted with an interrupter gear set off an intensive effort to put an Allied fixed gun machine into the air as soon as possible.

In the meantime, it was the French Nieuport II, which took over from the DH2 and began to clear the Fokker E1 from the skies.

The first British machine to carry a forward firing gun with a workable interrupter gear was the Sopwith 1.5 strutter which did not come into operation until April 1916. it is interesting to note that although the 1.5 strutter had a forward-firing machine gun, it was a two-seater with the observer firing another machine gun in the back seat from the newly developed Scarff ring. It was closely followed by a scaled-down single-seater version, the Sopwith Pup.

With the introduction of the new style fighters, there was an urgent need to develop a doctrine for their use. In the early days combat tactics were either non-existent or very much an individual affair. Fighter aircraft were at first only introduced in small numbers and the fighter pilot remained a lone flyer stalking his enemy singly and on his own. It was soon noticed, however, that there were advantages in flying in pairs. One would attack from the side, usually from long range, while his partner would attack from behind and below at close range. They also could give each other mutual support. With the increase in numbers and the specialisation of units. squadrons began to take the air together and fight in formation. Then, as will be seen later, several squadrons would be combined into wings or “circuses”, and the true “loner” finally disappeared. Fighter pilots became more and more dependent on teamwork and on each other for success. The true war in the air was about to begin. Soon the specialised fighter pilot was to emerge and the cult of the “ace” to begin.

As the early aces began to emerge in 1916, so the demand for better fighters increased, and the Sopwith Pup was followed by the Nieuport 17, Both of these aircraft were in turn outclassed by the new German Albatross DIII, introduced by the beginning of 1917. It was fitted with twin Spandaus having a combined rate of fire of 1000 rounds per minute. compared with the Pup’s 300 rounds per minute. This time the Germans did not introduce the new fighters a few at a time, but concentrated them into the first of the “hunting” squadrons. The express purpose of these squadrons was to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft. They were not in any way diverted by escort duties or other missions.

The impact of this new aircraft, together with the new tactics, was absolutely shattering, and the Albatross gained complete mastery of the air. Recovery by the Allies began with the arrival of the British SES in April 1917, and the French Spad XIII in May. Final superiority was made certain by the arrival of the Sopwith Camel in July. The SE5 was a rugged biplane with two machine guns, although one of them was a Lewis gun mounted on the top wing, but it was a very stable gun platform. The Spad had two forward firing Vickers guns synchronised to fire through the airscrew. Both the Spad and the SES had excellent performance characteristics and were sturdily constructed. They proved to be amongst the best two Allied fighters of the war, and were in production and service to the very end of the war. The Camel was also an excellent machine which had outstanding aerobatic capabilities. It too was fitted with two forward firing Vickers. These three aircraft between them soon obtained complete air superiority against the Albatross. The Germans produced no replacement for the Albatross Dill and so lost their supremacy, never to regain it.

The Australians Arrive

Whilst the above developments had been going on, Australia had not been idle. In fact an Australian Aviation Corps had been formed as early as 1912. The first flying school opened at Point Cook in March, 1913, and the first course of pilots began training a few days after war broke out. The first operational unit was the famous Half Flight which went into action in Mesopotamia in April 1915. The first full scale unit to become operational was No. 1 Squadron, which formed in Australia in early 1916. It was sent to Egypt where it arrived on April 14, 1916, but was not fully equipped and ready for operations until some time in July. The next fully Australian unit was No. 3 Squadron which formed in England and moved to France on September 9, 1917.

Both these units were basically reconnaissance squadrons, equipped with two-seater aircraft such as the BE2C and REB, However, as mentioned previously, it was still 100 Australian Aviation & Defence Review, June. 1980 the practice to provide some fighter aircraft for escort duties as part of the strength of each observation squadron. Nos. 1 and 3 Squadrons AFC were no exception to this policy. No. 1 squadron was equipped with a flight of Bristol Scouts which were replaced later by Martinsydes. Later again these were replaced by the two-seater Bristol Fighter. By early 1918 the role of the squadron was changing and the number of Bristol Fighters with the squadron had increased to 18. No. 3 Squadron was at first provided with protection by RFC units and did not receive any Bristol Fighters of its own until September 1918.

The first of the Australian fighter squadrons was No. 2 Squadron which formed in Egypt in September 1916 but moved at once to England for training. This took almost a year, and the unit did not arrive in France until September 1917. However, it was quickly followed by No. 4 Squadron which had also been training in England and arrived in France in December 1917. No. 2 Squadron was originally equipped with DH5s later replaced by SESAS. No. 4 Squadron was originally equipped with Sopwith Camels which were replaced by Sopwith Snipes in October 1918, Altogether a total of 276 German aircraft were destroyed by these four squadrons, and over 60 of the pilots were to earn the accolade of “ace”.

In addition to the four operational squadrons, Australia also maintained a training wing in England of four training squadrons (Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8) to keep up the flow of needed replacements for the units in the field.

It can be rightly claimed that Australia was the first and only Dominion to have established its own flying corps in World War I. In addition, many hundreds of Australians volunteered as individuals for service with the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. As we shall see. several of these also became fighter aces.

The Aces

Although the term ace soon came to be used officially by the French and several other nations, particularly the Americans, it was never adopted by the British. Even to this day neither the RAF or the RAAF recognise the term and no official records of enemy planes shot down by individuals have ever been produced. More importantly, neither air force have ever published the names of their aces or outstanding pilots. On the other hand, the subject has been deeply researched and written about for so long that there is now little argument about “who did what”. Most of the facts can be obtained from official unit histories and war diaries, and in the citations for decorations and awards. There is also available a variety of private diaries and books written by the participants. It is therefore possible to arrive at a consensus of all the data by cross-reference of the material available.

The figures used in this series of articles have been carefully checked against a variety of sources and are as accurate as can be expected. In this regard the Australian War Memorial and the RAAF History Section have been most helpful, and it is wished to record the author’s thanks for their ready assistance. This is not to imply in any way that the figures, however, are official and any errors are entirely the responsibility of the writer. Having set the background, as it were, let us now look at the actual scores of the leading aces which have been collected together and are displayed on this page.

World War One

There has never been any doubt that Richthofen with a score of 80 victories was the top ace of the 1914/18 war. Next in line came Fonck of France with 75, and he was closely followed by Mannock (Britain) and Bishop (Canada) with scores of 73 and 72 respectively. Surprisingly, Rickenbacker, the well-known and much-publicised American ace was well below average with a total of only 26. By comparison, the top-scoring Australian airman of that period achieved a score of 47. He was Captain R. A. Little, DSO & Bar, DSC & Bar, CdeG, who was serving with the RFC, but attached to the Royal Naval Air Service at the time. His score places him in eighth position on the list of British aces and within the top 20 aces from all countries in WWI.

Another Australian serving with the RFC at the time who achieved a high score was Major R. S. Dallas, DSO, DSC & Bar, CdeG, with a total of 39. The top-scoring Australian actually serving with the Australian Flying Corps, and in Australian uniform, was the (then) Captain A. H. Cobby, DSO, DFC & 2 Bars, with a total of 29 confirmed victories. In general, however, it will be noted that the top aces from the major powers were all fairly well matched, and scores are generally quite high when compared with the figures for WWII.

World War II

The differences between the scores in the First World War and the second can be seen in the accompanying tables. There are several reasons for this. To begin with, in WWI the aircraft on both sides were fairly evenly matched. They also operated in similar roles and almost without exception flew in the same limited battle area under the same conditions. This was not so in WWII where the battles were fought right across the globe in widely differing conditions. The figures given here for the Second World War cover the Western Allied nations only. It has just not been possible to obtain comparable figures in detail for the Russians, or the Germans and the Japanese, although some isolated figures are discussed below.

On the Allied side, it will be noted that the figures for the top-scoring aces are just half those obtained in the First World War. The top scorers were Sqdn Ldr M. T. Pattle, DFC & Bar, a South African serving in the RAF with a total of 41, and Major Richard I. Bong, MH, DSC, SS, DFC, AM, the American ace with a total of 40. It is interesting to note that the top-scoring Australian ace in the Second World War also makes the top 20 top scorers on the Allied side. This is Group Captain C. R. Caldwell, DSO, DFC & Bar, Polish Cross of Valour, whose total score was 28%.

The next highest score by an Australian was only just over half this at a total of 16 each by Truscott and Goldsmith. Compare this with Little’s 47 and Cobby’s 29 in the earlier conflict. The difference in figures is even more outstanding when it is considered that the total obtained, for example, by Cobby in the First World War were obtained in less than a year: while Caldwell’s and the other scores were spread over four years and three or four different areas.

The comparison is not meant to detract from the performance of any pilot, nor does it in any way suggest that one was better than the other. It is merely used to emphasise the great difference between the conditions in the two wars. In fact it can be used as a very strong argument in support of the RAF and RAAF policy of not accepting the ace system, and of not giving publicity to any pilot or his score. On this subject, however, it is also of interest to note that the number of Australian airmen who can be defined as aces in the First World War totals 61, whilst the number in the Second World War stands at 62.

Perhaps the qualities of a fighter ace are best described by Stanford Tuck, himself one of the highest-scoring British aces of the last war. In a forward to a book on fighter aces*. he writes: . . .

“The term fighter ace always seemed to me to conjure up the mental picture of some gay, abandoned, almost irresponsible young pilot leaping into his aircraft, and tearing off into the sky to chalk up victories like knocking off glass bottles in the circus rifle range. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any fighter pilot, after his first combat is very well aware that air fighting on the scale of the last war was a cold, calculating, cat-and-mouse type of combat, which required great preparation, lightning reactions, first-class teamwork and above all, cool decisive leadership.”