FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1916
1916 - 1074.PDF
fight the other day, and Fritz had us beat to the wide. His machines were twice as fast as ours." We are neither alarmist nor pessimist, but we have been hearing, too much of the same sort of thing lately. It is in the nature of things that in a war of the magnitude of the present struggle there will occur numberless cases in which one side or the other is in possession of a local superiority in men or materials. That being so, it must sometimes be the case that the obsolescent British machine will find itself up against a more modern and therefore more efficient enemy aeroplane, and conversely. But when that sort of thing occurs with something approaching regularity it becomes disquieting, and we are led to ask if all is as well as we are asked to believe, and whether we are in fact doing all that the situation demands ? In particular are we concentrating enough on the provision of squadrons of fast scouts, machines that will beat the latest German types— or at least equal them—in speed and climbing capacity ? It is absolutely vital to the success of our aerial operations that such machines shall be provided, and that without delay, as an answer to the Roland and Halberstadt machines that the enemy is now putting into the air on the Somme front, and of whose wonderful speed and climbing powers we hear a great deal. They must be answered in kind—we have the means—and to make the answer effective entails that we shall have to concentrate our energies on the output of engines— big engines of a power and type that will put the speed and climbing capacity necessary to meet offensive with offensive into the hands of our airmen at the front. We have the best airmen in the world— airmen who to maintain our mastery of the air will go up and take chances in meeting the superior German machines, but we ask: Is it right that our pilots should be asked to take these chances ? The question does not require answering. It most certainly is not right that we should depend for our supremacy on the superior skill and the greater daring of our personnel. That we are able to maintain it is a wonderful tribute to the gallantry and self- sacrifice of the R.F.C., especially when we are cognisant of the handicap imposed upon them by the large numbers of obsolescent machines that are in use at the front. We know that it is impossible that these can be replaced in the twinkling of an eye. Further, we know that efforts are in fact being made to keep our material in front of that of the enemy, but we are by no means satisfied that everything possible is being done in that direction. That is in great part due to the existing unsatis factory-state of affairs as regards the Air Board, a matter that we have dealt with elsewhere. We have indicated the remedy—more and yet more squadrons gi a Honours for Zepp. Strafers. THE following was announced by the Secretary of the Admiralty on December 3rd :— " The King has been pleased to approve the award of the Distinguished Service Order to Flight Sub-Lieutenant EDWARD L. PULLING, R.N.A.S., and of the Distinguished Service Cross to Flight Lieutenant EGBERT CADBURY and Flight Sub-Lieutenant GERRARD W. R. FANE, of the R.N.A.S., in recognition of their distinguished services on the occasion of the destruction of a Zeppelin airship off the Norfolk coast, in early morning of Tuesday, Nov. 28th, 1916." IO of fast, powerful scouts. That is what we have to go for, or we shall stand in grave danger of losing that complete mastery of the air which we hold at present. Indeed, we would put the matter in a stronger light, and say that we are even now in danger of weakening in our hold, and that only by the most whole-hearted effort on our part can we maintain our full hold. We can build the machines ; the crux is engines. That seems to be the critical point on which our efforts must be still further concentrated. ** There was nothing surprising in last The Raid week's aeroplane raid on London, London, except that it came so late in the war. It was only what was to be expected and what was very long overdue. Why no enter prising enemy airman had not taken his fortune in his hands many months ago we do not profess to understand. Fortunately, the experience of last week's raider is not one to encourage the others, else we should have committed ourselves to the prophecy that as this was the first, so it would not be the last. As it happened no particular damage was done, and the raider was intercepted and brought down before he could reach the friendly shelter of his base. Such an experience will probably give the Germans to ponder, although at the same time it would be the rankest folly on our part to assume that for the future we are likely to be immune from such spasmodic raids. On the contrary, they are very likely to recur —and not with single machines—from time to time, and it is for us to consider the best means of guarding against them. To our way of thinking, the best defence against these raids lies in carrying the war into the enemy's country. Let the Germans be given to understand that every such raid will be countered by two raids on open enemy towns for every one carried out on this country. We held aloof from the policy of reprisal as long as it was possible to do so, but we are now convinced that it is the only possible one to employ against such an enemy as we are engaged with now. It is the only argument he can understand, and the sooner we revert to the Mosaic code of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the sooner will the German mind grasp the fact that " frightful- ness " is a two-edged tool that is apt to cut the one who employs it. As long as we refrain from reprisals, the enemy will continue to believe—as he undoubtedly does—that we have not the means at our disposal to hit him where he lives, or that if we have the means we are afraid to employ it. Let us show him that neither of these theories is correct, and these raids will cease at once. Refrain, and we shall never be safe from them. 19 IS In the London Gazette of December 6th the award of the D.S.O. to Flight Sub-Lieut. Pulling is given as follows :— '* In recognition of the skill and gallantry which he displayed on the morning of the 28th of November, 1916, in pursuing out to sea, attacking at close range, and destroying a Zeppelin, which had been engaged in a raid on England. Flight Sub- Lieutenant Pulling was exposed to machine-gun fire through out the attack." The awards of the D.S.C. to Flight Lieut. Cadbury. and Flight Sub-Lieut. Fane are referred to in the same way, except for the omission of the words " and destroying a Zeppelin."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
