Why do we venerate the Fighter Pilot?

If I might add my tuppence worth…

The advent of flight came just after the end of the Victorian era, a period of tremendous social change when rural traditions were beginning to disappear as people drifted from the countryside into the industrial towns to work in the mills, etc. At the same time, people needed to cling to the past and the romantic ideal of history became very powerful. For example, Edward Landseer’s magnificent painting of the Monarch of the Glen typifies the Victorian image of a romantic, rural, Scottish Highlands, at a time when most Highlanders were moving into slums in Glasgow for work. This romantic image of the past, fuelled by historic writers such as Sir Walter Scott, still colours our view of the past and is the period when legends such as King Arthur and Camelot became particularly widespread. The ideas of chivalry became deeply embedded in the psyche, probably much more so than they had actually been in the medieval period. Into this romantic view of the past came the aircraft which finally fulfilled man’s dream of flying with the birds.

It was, of course, only just over ten years later that the Great War started and the romantic ideal of chivalrous, one-on-one, hand-to-hand combat was shattered when images and reports finally reached home of the carnage in the trenches. However, the one aspect of the Great War that was seen as maintaining the romantic ideal was the fighter pilot. His was an honourable war free of the mud and rats of the trenches, where modern-day knights could test their skills against each other. There, it was the better man who would win, not good men being slaughtered by weak men behind machine guns (I’m not saying weak men manned machine guns – that’s just the romantic view of the time). It was aerial combat which could be reported in the papers and wouldn’t cause respectable gentlemen to choke on their breakfast when they read it. Fighter pilots made galmorous, exciting news and that was how it was reported.

The point I’m trying to make, if you excuse the long-winded background, is that the contemporary view of history, combined with the reporting from the front lines, made the fighter pilot into the high profile modern day hero that they remain to this day.

That’s what I think, anyway. 🙂

I wonder how much the veneration was increased by the newspapers of the day. As with Dunkirk, there was’t much that was good news happening so anything that gives even the slightest feelgod factor may have been plugged. I’ve always thought that’s why the Spitfire has had so much limelight, compared to the Hurricane. The Spitfire caught the public’s attention so the papers concentrated on it from then on and increased the effect. To south east residents, some of what was happening was actually visible to them, as well.
I’ve put two different sentences in here and deleted them both. I can’t work out at the moment how to say what I mean.

why do we venerate the Fighter pilot

The great Victorian poet, Mathew Arnold gives us a clue why in his poem ‘Sohrab and Rostrum’-‘Dim is the rumour of a common fight-
But of single combat fame speaks clear,’
Equally Irish poet WB Yeats when in his poem-‘An Irish Airman Forsees his Death’ he wrote; ‘A lonely impulse of delight
Drove me to that tumult in the skies’

The RAF fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain had the ability to fight back after the withdrawl from France. The moral value of their actions far outweighed the actual effect on the Luftwaffe.
Britain could readily identify it’s fighter heroes – the bomber crews with their forays into enemy territory had little they could physically show back home for their efforts.
Essentially long before PR became reality , the sight in
the Daily News of a downed ‘109’ in a cornfield made young men wish to fight and those that couldn’t strive to support them.

Manonthefence

That short passage by Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris certainly did the same to me, and made the hairs stand up on my arms.

It would be a fitting piece to add to my novel.

Personally I wouldn’t say I venerate the Fighter Pilot as such, I’m actually in awe of all the guys that took a fighting roll, from the erks to the pilots and crew.

Admittedly the persona of the fighter pilot was hyped up because of his knight of the air, fighting alone thousands of feet up with nothing but him and his trusted steed between death and glory image.

The BoB probably had a lot more to do with pushing the fighter pilot and his happy go lucky aura to the forefront than any-other conflict or previous wars. Even though they had fought over France in WW1 and the first few months of WW2 with a similar verve the battle was over a greater plain and with many different forces involved. However the BoB in the main was the RAF and in particular Fighter Command pitched against the evil forces of Nazism, saving the country from enslavement.

Recent controversial theories about the bombing tactics adopted by Bomber Command have wrongly in my opinion lessened the sacrifices made by the airmen of that command and probably watered down the image of the bomber pilot or crew. The job was inherently more dangerous and dependant more on luck than the role of the fighter pilot, the fighter pilot could to the greater extent fight or manoeuvre his way out of trouble, the bomber crews were at the mercy of indiscriminate flak and night fighters, being tied to the bomber formation especially during the bomb run, with little chance of survival if the aircraft was hit and out of control.

My research has been mainly fighter pilot based because of geographical location and not as a result of veneration of the role, fighters and fighter bombers were the main aircraft seen around the Channel Islands coming from the bases along the south western coast of the UK. We did however have several bombers come down in the general area that I am interested in. It’s interesting to note that in the main the bombers crews managed to survive and were rescued, where as the majority of fighter pilots were lost.

“I would be inclined to disagree with you there Kev. The ‘Ace’ fighter pilot can be traced back to the First World War, and in that particular conflict they were definitely ‘on their own’ as such – the RFC fighter pilots were about the only numerous ‘command’ (correct me if I’m wrong please). Different war though. At that time ALL of aviation was a thing of awe-inspiring wonder. All pilots were held in some kind of appealing esteem.”

You are of course right to a point. Air to air fighting was new, and, indeed, made a striking counterpoint to the slaughter in the trenches. A press report saying “our airmen shot down six of their airmen for the loss of just two of our pilots” is bound to sound more favourable than one saying “two thousand allied soldiers were killed today but we gained thirty yards of ground.”

Cobber Kain’s success, or the successes of the pilots of Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain are not to be denigrated, least of all by me. In fact I attribute the survival of this Country to that gallant group of pilots. The fact remains that the war was going badly, the threat of invasion was real, the odds were certainly against this Country. For morale reasons the slightest hint of success was turned into a major victory. Take Dunkirk, essentially the routing of an Army which was viewed as a triumph.

Your point about bomber losses early in the war are merely comparative. The losses were not considered heavy because large numbers of aircraft were not available. Although that would be small comfort to the crews of 2 Group for instance for whom the losses were enormous.

You also talk about the ‘Ace’ pilot. It would be interesting to know how many pilots never made a single claim. I think you’d find it a considerable number. As the Fighter Command policy of leaning out progressed it became much more of a team war. Yes, there were huge melees but pilots were encouraged to fight in pairs to protect each other. You’ll find that all the great “Aces” had superbly skillful and reliable wingmen.

No-one can deny that Bomber Command’s losses were horrendous. it should be remembered that as far as the heavies are concerned each crew lost was seven men not one. I think that’s why the losses were described as percentages. An acceptable loss of six percent of a bomber force of five hundred aircraft was thirty aircraft or two hundred and ten men. Those figures do not sound “acceptable”, six percent does.

You talk about those of the Royal Navy, Merchant Navy, the Army, Gurkhas, Burma and the Fourteenth ‘Forgotten’ Army. There is arguably less glamour in the Infantryman’s slog through Europe, North Africa and the Far East. Or in the cold waters of the Arctic Circle or shark infested seas of the Pacific. What it boils down to is what it said in your last sentence, we owe our thanks to all of them, for all time.

It’s as simple as that.

Regards,

kev35

I would be inclined to disagree with you there Kev. The ‘Ace’ fighter pilot can be traced back to the First World War, and in that particular conflict they were definitely ‘on their own’ as such – the RFC fighter pilots were about the only numerous ‘command’ (correct me if I’m wrong please). Different war though. At that time ALL of aviation was a thing of awe-inspiring wonder. All pilots were held in some kind of appealing esteem. This, and the ‘cleanliness’ and chivalry of their fight is what I think Moggy is meaning, and is certainly a contributing factor in the later war.

‘Cobber’ Kain was the first one to get elevated into the public spotlight in World War 2 during the Battle of France. This, and the subsequent events of the Battle of Britain (where many of the legends were born) pre-date Bomber Commands big raids / big losses by a substantial amount. By the time the Ruhr was being hit hard and the bombers were going down in large numbers (large enough to become public knowledge – I am not forgetting the earlier courage of the Fairey Battles in France, or the Blenheims, Wellingtons and Hampdens of previous years, losses of which were certainly heavy, though not ‘large scale’ in the same degree.) Adding to this, we have the ‘Never before’ speech by Churchill and that best-selling account of the Battle of France, ‘Fighter Pilot’ by Paul Richey, amongst other things, yet the butchery that was happening high up was over another country, out of sight, at night, and probably largely withheld for morale. Also, by this time, the fighter pilots were back on more level ground. The days of defence were over, and the offensive had begun. By 1941 the Spitfires were sweeping over France, continuing through 1942, and by 1943 they, with Typhoons, were doing that and counterring the tip-and-run raiders. Again, out of sight (largely) and out of mind. The ‘kills’ weren’t what they had been in that first summer. By 1944, the fighter pilots star was largely on the wane. The Typhoons had gone over to ground attack roles for the main part, the Spits too, the Hurricane in Europe was largely out of the front line, and Fighter Command was being incorporated into Tactical Air Forces with other operational requirements and commitments. Meanwhile, Harris still had a great deal of autonomy inasmuch as his job was still the same, albeit on a grander scale, and the force he commanded had grown ever-larger in both materiel and crews.

Come on. Get stuck in! Get typing! Opinions, analyses, thoughts!

Great quote Manonthefence – that goes totally with much of what I have read in the past from accounts by those who were there.

oops sorry should have done that earlier

It was no less than Air Chief Marshall Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris

Not heard that before.

Great. 🙂

Can you credit the author?

Moggy

This is why

He was no Galahad, no knight sans peur et sans reproche.
Sans paur? Fear was the second enemy to beat. He was
A common, unconsidered man, who, for a moment of eternity
Held the whole future of mankind in his two sweating plams
And did not let it go.

Remember him,
Not as he is portrayed, but as he was.
To him you owe the most of what you have and love today.
.

It brings tears each time i read it.

Indeed 🙂

Moggy

Moggy.

“Probably a longing after the chivalry of knightly combat, venerated as a counterpoint to the ‘production line’ slaughter of the trenches in 1914-18?”

Or as a diversion away from the horrendous losses, or production line slaughter, suffered by Bomber Command?

Regards,

kev35

Good question – I think you put your finger on it with the ‘individual’ nature of the combat.

Probably a longing after the chivalry of knightly combat, venerated as a counterpoint to the ‘production line’ slaughter of the trenches in 1914-18?

Moggy

I doubt that’s the only answer, and there are bound to be many, many more variables to think of. Anyway, answers come secondary to discussion – and there is a good mix and cross-section of people on here who can look at different angles.

A great idea for a topic mate, even though, at the end, you’ve answered it yourself really-if only we could shake all their hands and say ‘thanks’, eh?