What process was used to decide where a Pilot was sent ? I'm sure alot of them wanted to be Fighter Pilots but ended up on transport, bombers and elsewhere. Did all Pilots start with the potential for fighters but the less able ended up on other aircraft? Or did some men actually choose what they wanted to fly? Please educate the unknowning, ta.
Nearly all of them wanted to be fighter pilots, but they were sent where they were needed mostly. On occassion if someone was outstanding in the fighter pilot mould (ie total loner and a complete disregard for rules) then they were probably listed for fighter, but after BoB this became less likely as bomber pilots were needed. As to less able on bombers, not really. You had to be damn good to fly a bomber when it was fully loaded and to fling it arounf the sky in the corkscrew manouvre.
Just as an aside to Kitty's comment, it also depended upon the country and at what stage of the war. I rememebr reading awhile back about the US infantry's problems with replacements at the end on 1944, and to plug this problems hundreds of would be air force recruits were transferred during their training to the infantry. This was done partly to plug the hole, and partly because it was felt that so many air force pilots and crew were no longer needed. I'll dig out the reference later to clarify.
Just to involve the Axis Pilots, for example, would a recruit to the Luftwaffe ask to go on Stukas or be sent there? Recruiting Office,1945 Japan....."I'd like to be a Kamikaze pilot please."
Many actually did. I know, just couldn't think of another example. Wonder if they turned any down, "Actually with your skills you'd be wasted, actually we'd like to send you to....." I think NOT. Returning to the topic in hand. Just found this story of how an Indian Serviceman became a Pilot. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/Hoshang01.html AN AIRMAN'S TOUR IN BURMA CONVERSATIONS WITH WING COMMANDER HK PATEL (RETD) "Then why did you apply?" I said, "I didn't apply - you called me, but I didn't apply".
My understanding is that, at least before the war, the best British pilots were assigned to bombers as the RAF considered bombers to be more important than fighters.
The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan 1939-45 At the start of the Second World War, the British Government looked to the Dominions for air training help because the United Kingdom did not have the space to accommodate training and operational facilities, and because aerodromes in the United Kingdom were vulnerable to enemy attack Between 1940 and 1945, some 151 schools had been established across Canada with a ground organization of 104,113 men and women. By the end of the Second World War, the BCATP had produced 131,553 aircrew, including pilots, wireless operators, air gunners, and navigators for the Air Forces of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Nationality of BCATP Graduates (1940-1945) Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) 72 835 ---------------------------------------------------- Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) 9 606 ---------------------------------------------------- Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) 7 002 ---------------------------------------------------- Royal Air Force (RAF), which included 42 110 448 Poles 677 Norwegians 800 Belgian and Dutch 900 Czechs 2 600 Free French Naval Fleet Air Arm also trained at BCATP schools 5 296 [FONT="]Elementary training took approximately eight weeks, which included at least 50 hours of flying. Aircraft commonly used at Elementary Flying Training Schools were de Havilland Tiger Moths, Fleet Finches, and Fairchild Cornells. Successful trainees then progressed to Service Flying Training Schools for more advanced instruction. Because syllabus revisions were made throughout the war, the course length varied from [/FONT][FONT="]10[/FONT][FONT="] to 16 weeks, and flying time varied from 75 to 100 hours. Potential fighter pilots trained on single-engine North American Harvards while pilots selected for bomber, coastal, and transport operations received training on twin-engine Avro Ansons, Cessna Cranes, or Airspeed Oxfords. (It seems that the choice of plane was made at this stage - I've just read on another site the choice was made based on flying ability, the instructor's recommendations, psychological tests, and the relative demands for particular types at any one time of the war. It seems from the various BBC People's War stories, that the potential pilot didn't actually have the greatest say on what he flew) After five weeks of theoretical training at Initial Training Schools, air observers would move to Air Observer Schools for a 12-week course on aerial photography, reconnaissance, and air navigation. This also included 60 to 70 hours of practical experience in the air. Observers learned the science of bombing during their 10-week stay at a Bombing and [/FONT][FONT="]Gunnery[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="]. With an additional four weeks at an [/FONT][FONT="]Air[/FONT][FONT="]Navigation[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="], recruits were then ready for posting overseas. After June 1942, the duties of the air observer were divided between navigators and air bombers, thus replacing the observer category. Navigators specializing in bombing spent eight weeks at a Bombing and [/FONT][FONT="]Gunnery[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="] and 12 weeks at an [/FONT][FONT="]Air[/FONT][FONT="]Observer[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="]. These men were then qualified as both navigators and bomb aimers. Navigators specializing as wireless operators trained for 28 weeks at a [/FONT][FONT="]Wireless[/FONT][FONT="]Training School[/FONT][FONT="] and 22 weeks at an [/FONT][FONT="]Air[/FONT][FONT="]Observer[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="]. Airmen studying to be air bombers spent five weeks at an [/FONT][FONT="]Initial[/FONT][FONT="]Training School[/FONT][FONT="], 8 to 12 weeks at a Bombing and [/FONT][FONT="]Gunnery[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="], and six weeks at an [/FONT][FONT="]Air[/FONT][FONT="]Observer[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="]. Besides learning how to drop bombs accurately, air bombers learned the map-reading and observations skills necessary for assisting navigators. Wireless operator*air gunners spent 28 weeks at a [/FONT][FONT="]Wireless[/FONT][FONT="]Training School[/FONT][FONT="] where they became proficient in radio work. Gunnery training took six weeks at a Bombing and [/FONT][FONT="]Gunnery[/FONT][FONT="]School[/FONT][FONT="]. Straight air gunners, also taught at Bombing and [/FONT][FONT="]Gunnery[/FONT][FONT="]Schools[/FONT][FONT="], underwent a 12-week [/FONT][FONT="]program involving ground training and actual air firing practice. Later in the war, a flight engineer was added to heavy bomber crews. Besides being an aero-engine technician, flight engineers received enough training to be able to replace a pilot who was killed or injured. Most engineers were trained in the [/FONT][FONT="]United Kingdom[/FONT][FONT="], but about 1,900 engineers eventually graduated from the Flight Engineers School in [/FONT][FONT="]Aylmer[/FONT][FONT="], [/FONT][FONT="]Ontario[/FONT][FONT="], once it opened in July 1944[/FONT]
Sounds like they went where they were sent and flew what they were told to. Two of my Dad's cousins went to USA on Aircrew training. Gerry became W/O and posted to Australia. Bill, bomb aimer, was the one shot down in the Wellington. It was intersting reading their letters about skyscrapers, ice-cream and wartime USA life. So different to Swindon in WW2.
Just a few comments on the above: I'm sure a lot of them wanted to be Fighter Pilots but ended up on transport, bombers and elsewhere . I've heard that both Gibson and Cheshire positively wanted to be bomber pilots as they saw it as the way of carrying the war to the enemy. Sounds like they went where they were sent and flew what they were told to. Once the war started, and probably before unless you were of exceptional ability, I'm sure this was the case if someone was outstanding in the fighter pilot mould (ie total loner and a complete disregard for rules) Kitty: Are you sure the above was the case? Many fighter pilots were flamboyant types; all too many got themselves killed or lost legs etc in unauthorised aerobatics. But in the actual fighting, from mid-1917 onward it was recognised that discipline and teamwork were as important for a fighter pilot as any other fighting man. Bit like being a footballer: you can be a flamboyant individual but you have to work as a team. This was particularly important when flying an aircraft less manouverable than the oppostion's; you had to attack from a favourable position, dive on your target and get away without getting into a dogfight. This was how the US Navy Wildcats managed to get the better of the Zeros. The Japanese were generally the archetype of the unthinking conformist: but their fighter pilots saw themselves as Samurai warriors and flew as individualists - precisely the situation where individuality could lead to their downfall. adrian
Kitty: Are you sure the above was the case? Many fighter pilots were flamboyant types; all too many got themselves killed or lost legs etc in unauthorised aerobatics. But in the actual fighting, from mid-1917 onward it was recognised that discipline and teamwork were as important for a fighter pilot as any other fighting man. Bit like being a footballer: you can be a flamboyant individual but you have to work as a team. This was particularly important when flying an aircraft less manouverable than the oppostion's; you had to attack from a favourable position, dive on your target and get away without getting into a dogfight. This was how the US Navy Wildcats managed to get the better of the Zeros. The Japanese were generally the archetype of the unthinking conformist: but their fighter pilots saw themselves as Samurai warriors and flew as individualists - precisely the situation where individuality could lead to their downfall. Maybe so, but when you read all of the individual biographies, there is a very strong independance about the fighter pilots, whereas the bomber pilots tended to be quieter and more concerned about their crew. Yes, the fighters worked together as a team, but once the dog fighting started it was all down to the individual. I know Bader and Johnson et al couldn't have hacked it in the bombers. And I'm amazed Gibson could, to be frank.
Maybe so, but when you read all of the individual biographies, there is a very strong independance about the fighter pilots, whereas the bomber pilots tended to be quieter and more concerned about their crew. Yes, the fighters worked together as a team, but once the dog fighting started it was all down to the individual. I know Bader and Johnson et al couldn't have hacked it in the bombers. And I'm amazed Gibson could, to be frank. But the clever ones would avoid dog-fights anyway - I don't mean that they chickened out of them, but that a more efficient way of fighting, and of living longer, was to sneak up on your enemy out of the sun. If you were in a dogfight, wingmen were supposed to stick close to their leader and watch their back. However, I'm sure its true that certain temperaments were better suited to one or the other. Gibson of course had a stint as a night-fighter pilot (Beaufighters) and IIRC was credited with four kills. But he still went back to bombers.
Just a point on Adrian's and Kitty's posts - yes the psychology of the pilots on fighters and bombers was different; but this was more the case for those who had qualified before ar at the very early stages of the war. Even with the tests and abilities of the trainees, the RAF and USAAF did allow for psycholoical traits to govern which type of plane a pilot flew. However, this changed as the war went on, not only because of strategic need, but also tactics and the amount and type of training available, had changed. Especially for the USAAF, the fighter doctrine of bomber protection curtailed a lot of the "individuality" and freedom that fighter pilots may have felt when they began their training. If you’re still interested in pilot selection etc, these reports on how it was done in USAAF during the war are interesting. They are available at the Air Force Historical Research Agency http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/studies1.asp The most relevant is: No. 2 Initial Selection of Candidates for Pilot, Bombardier, and Navigator Training, by Robert L. Thompson (1943) http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/467594.pdf But these two are quite interesting too: No. 15 Procurement of Aircrew Trainees, Natalie Grow (1944) http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/467607.pdf No. 18 Pilot Transition to Combat Aircraft, by Betty J. McNarney http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/467610.pdf For the RAF: RAF Pilot Training - Geoff Wright UK (BBC People’s War) is interesting as one man recollects his experience of training: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/02/a2855702.shtml
Many actually did. Many Japanese Pilots flew kamikaze missions by choice. The large portion of suicide missions were assigned to young pilots will little experience, using the senior pilots was considered to be wasteful by the Japanese brass. There were also many reports of suicide pilots "not being able to find the target", this was a common excuse for pilots who were not prepaired for suicide missions.
