The Aeroplane in War

by Claude Grahame-White; Harry Harper

FIFTH SECTION ENGLAND’S POSITION IN REGARDS TO MILITARY FLYING

I. Lessons which were ignored—Work of the Parliamentary Aerial Defence
Committee.

So far as the position, at the present time, is concerned, England is far behind other great nations in the matter of aerial armament, and our deficiency is open to the greatest criticism. But it is, in all things, necessary to be fair. Therefore, it must be remembered that the War Office has pledged itself to a definite move.

A scheme, to which further reference will be made, has been brought forward to obtain the services of a hundred army airmen. More aeroplanes have recently been bought; and a sum of £11,000 is to be spent upon a military competition in England, which will probably be held in July next.

Thus, although our present position is perilously weak, we have the promise of a firmer, more reasonable policy. By the end of the forthcoming flying season, if the War Office maintains its new attitude, we should have laid the corner-stone, at least, of an efficient air-corps.

Therefore, in the criticisms of Government policy which it is, of course, impossible to avoid, the fact must be remembered that at last something is to be done—nothing very ambitious, it is true, nothing that will put us on a level say with France, but, at any rate, something. A very unpretentious policy is better than no policy at all.

In this section, we propose to deal with those circumstances, and representations, which have led to the dispelling of official apathy in England.

Compared with the work being done in France and Germany, we have still practically no organisation; and yet such organisation as has been described will spell all the difference between success and failure, when aeroplanes are actually used in war.

All that has been definitely established in England, so far, is the Air Battalion, which is not in a position to give all its time and attention to the development of the war aeroplane. Within its scheme of duties, in addition to aeroplaning, comes the manipulation or dirigible balloons, and also of ordinary balloons, and kites.

It was in April, 1911, that the Air Battalion came into existence. One or two aeroplanes had, by this time, been purchased. A flying school was opened on Salisbury Plain; and there was much talk, in the House of Commons, as to the start which this country had begun to make in regard to military aviation. This, as has been said, was in April.

Four months later, however, there were only half a dozen officers of the Air Battalion who were competent to handle aeroplanes in reconnoitring work; the remainder had been either without machines, or had been engaged upon airship or balloon duties.

Thus, despite repeated demonstrations of the value of the aeroplane for war purposes, and in face of the activity in France and Germany, we found ourselves, in September, 1911, with half a dozen military airmen who were ready to take part in the autumn manœuvres. As it happened, the manœuvres were cancelled; but, had they not been, six air-scouts would have been altogether insufficient to make any adequate test of the value of aerial reconnoitring.

In sharp contrast to our lethargy, France was, at this time, ready to put thirty aeroplanes, with highly-skilled pilots and observers, at the disposal of the troops in her autumn manœuvres. More could have been obtained, if necessary; but this number was considered sufficient.

It must not be thought that our military airmen lack either initiative or experience: they do not. In the limited opportunities they have had of showing what they can do, their performances have been highly meritorious. They are enthusiastic, and full of aptitude for their work. But they have lacked facilities, and also encouragement. Instead of there being purpose, and a genuine spirit of progress behind them, they have found neither energy nor interest, to say nothing of a persistent stinting of money.

A question inevitably arises. It is this: why has England lagged behind such alert nations as France and Germany in the matter of aerial armament? The answer lies in the fact that, until recently, the importance of the aeroplane in warfare was denied.

Enlightened views have been expressed, it is true; many men, even in official positions, have pronounced progressive opinions. But results are all-important; and it is a fact that no really satisfactory step has yet been taken to place this country on an equality with other nations in regard to an air-fleet.

Lessons have been ignored. The whole subject has been neglected, and it has only been as the result of determined agitation that anything at all has been done.

In view of the apathy prevailing, it was in May, 1911, that the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee, a body comprising members of Parliament of all political views, organised, at the Hendon aerodrome—which had been placed at their disposal by the courtesy of Mr Claude Grahame-White—a special display of airmanship, to which they invited military experts.

So far as it was possible to do so, in a one-day programme, a most convincing demonstration was given, both of the reliability and controllability of the modern aeroplane. Many famous people were present; a long programme of flying was carried out. Dispatches were borne across country; reconnoitring flights were made; aeroplanes were quickly dismantled, and speedily reassembled. In every possible way, in fact, the practicability of the new "arm" was demonstrated.

II. Policy of "moving cautiously"—Peril of lagging behind in aerial armament.

After this display, the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee, feeling that the lesson taught should be pushed home, sought an interview with Lord Haldane, at the War Office. He readily saw the members of the Committee; but his reply to their representations—which were that we should keep abreast of other nations—indicated the spirit which then existed regarding the war aeroplane.

The chief point made by the Secretary for War was that it was "desirable to move cautiously." The War Office should not, in his opinion, "commit itself to an idea which, in the present rapid development of aviation, might become obsolete in a few months."

This statement was made to explain the fact that England’s supply of war aeroplanes was inadequate. But the argument was not tenable. Naturally there has been, and will be, improvement in aeroplane construction from year to year. Such will always be the case. It is the same, for instance, in regard to battleships. Yet warships, despite their enormous cost, are built from year to year, in the full knowledge that they will be superseded by more modern types, and may even become obsolete while they are being constructed.

As regards aeroplanes, the machines which France bought, early in 1911, are most certainly made to appear somewhat out-of-date by more perfect craft now obtainable. But these earlier machines will still be serviceable; and France will, above all, have acquired an immense amount of experience while using them.

In this connection, it may be mentioned that, so far as can be ascertained at present, the aeroplane is likely to proceed along fairly steady lines of development—at any rate for the next year or so. There may be some revolutionary idea brought forward, of course; but, generally speaking, the immediate future seems to indicate a slow but sure improvement.

There is no excuse for a country to hold back upon the argument that aeroplanes may become obsolete soon after they are built. In the first place, the cost of such machines, when compared with any other form of armament, is ridiculously low.

To "scrap" a fleet of fifty or sixty aeroplanes would be an insignificant item in our general expenditure upon warlike instruments. But, as a matter of fact, there would be no need to abandon any type purchased. Out-of-date machines could still be employed, and made thoroughly useful, too, by being converted into "school" craft.

Lord Haldane gave the impression, in his conversation with the members of the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee, that the War Office was holding back from the expenditure of money upon war aeroplanes until some fixed type of military machine was introduced. But it is not likely that any such machine will be designed—at any rate for some time to come. It is probable that progress will be represented by a succession of improving types, development taking place, chiefly, in regard to speed and stability.

During this period of progress, there is no possible excuse for Great Britain to lag behind other countries. To-morrow, if a war broke out, France and Germany would have the full use of their adequate squadrons of machines. And what would our position be? We should have no proper fleet of machines, because we had been waiting for some ideal type to be evolved.

As a matter of fact, neither France nor Germany consider that the aeroplanes they are at present using are anything but purely experimental machines. But they certainly represent the best obtainable at the moment; and, recognising the vital importance of keeping abreast of this new science, these two countries buy such machines, and will be quite ready to purchase more, as the process of improvement continues.

In 1909, Lord Haldane said in the House of Commons:—

"In war there is little use for anything unless it can be applied with some certainty that it would do what we want it to do, and unless you have some exactness in results. Now that stage (referring to aeroplanes) has not been reached."

That, as has been said, was in 1909. At this time, certainly, aeroplanes were unreliable, although the promise of their practicability was such that there was no excuse for ignoring them, from the military point of view.

But now let us turn to matters as they stand today. The modern aeroplane, with its engine as reliable as that in a motor-car, can be used with the greatest certainty for military work, and can fly long distances—heavily laden—without descending, besides attaining a speed through the air exceeding that of an express train.

III. The financial aspect—Money England is spending—The airship policy—Insufficient provision for aeroplanes.

In the year ending 31st March, 1912, a sum of £113,000 will have been expended by our authorities upon military aeronautics. Of this sum, an appreciable amount is devoted to establishment charges, and such items; and a sum of £28,000 was earmarked for building a new dirigible balloon shed at Farnborough, and in making improvements to the one at Wormwood Scrubs.

This leaves £85,000; and this sum of money, quite inadequate as it is, is free to be spent upon airships and aeroplanes. Quite an active airship policy is pursued, and a large percentage of this money remaining is dribbled away upon these costly machines—in building new ones, and in repairing old ones.

[Illustration: THE ENGINE-IN-FRONT BIPLANE. With the above machine—a type increasingly used for Service work—the Naval officers now experimenting at Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppy, have been carrying out recent tests. It was designed, and built, by Messrs. Short Brothers, who are now constructing special aeroplanes for Naval use.]

Criticising this policy trenchantly, soon after the announcement of the manner in which the War Office proposed to spend its money, Mr Arthur du Cros, M.P., the Hon. Secretary of the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee, remarked: "We, almost alone among nations, are developing the lighter-than-air type of machine to the exclusion of aeroplanes. France and Germany, formerly two of the staunchest advocates of the dirigible balloon, have almost ceased its development, in favour of the aeroplane.

"In a year, in regard to these two machines, the tables have been turned," added Mr du Cros. "Now the aeroplane, which costs so much less than the dirigible, is infinitely its superior. One aeroplane, costing say £1000, would, in the case of actual aerial warfare, have completely at its mercy a dirigible balloon costing perhaps £50,000."

Defending their policy, soon after Mr du Cros’ attacks, and responding to the definite statement that "aeroplanes have become immeasurably superior to airships for military purposes," War Office experts advanced the argument: "There would be work in war-time, such as very detailed reconnaissance, that an airship could perform better than an aeroplane. Both types should, therefore, be developed."

It may be agreed, in this connection, that the airship would, in a number of cases, allow of a more detailed reconnaissance being made than from an aeroplane; its slower speed, and the fact that it could hover over one spot, would give it this advantage. But, to set against this, there is one very obvious disadvantage. The size of the airship, and the fact that it is moving slowly, makes it an admirable target for artillery. In actual warfare, it would, without doubt, very soon be hit.

In this connection, too, the fact must be remembered that, whereas a wrecked aeroplane would represent a comparatively small financial loss, the destruction of a dirigible would be as great a calamity as the loss of a whole aeroplane fleet.

The expenses entailed in organising a dirigible balloon fleet are enormous, and altogether out of proportion to the useful work which these vessels could accomplish in time of war.

If an airship service is to be of practical value, monster sheds must be erected all over the country, so that a vessel may be able to run to one or other of them for shelter, when caught in a high wind. Apart from the expenditure which these sheds entail, the need arises to spend other large amounts upon the crews of trained men necessary to handle the aircraft when they leave the ground, or return from a flight.

There is another formidable item—the cost of the hydrogen gas necessary to inflate the huge envelopes; and, added to this, there is constant expenditure in effecting repairs, caused by the trifling accidents which are always occurring in handling these aerial monsters. Thus, a ruinous bill of cost is quickly arrived at.

And, as against all these disadvantages, the airship, as has been shown, has few, if any, definite advantages over the aeroplane. It can remain in the air longer, it is true; and it can, at the moment at any rate, carry heavier loads. But the great size of its envelope has, so far, made it the plaything of any high wind; and its bulk, in addition, renders it apparently impossible to force it through the air at anything like the speed attained by the aeroplane. Under favourable conditions, airship speeds of from thirty to thirty-five miles an hour seem to represent the best results yet attained.

Practical comparisons, between dirigible balloons and aeroplanes, were possible in the famous French manœuvres, in the autumn of 1910, which have been previously referred to. On this occasion, the aeroplanes were out, and at work in gusty winds, when the dirigibles were compelled to remain in their sheds.

And, when the airships did emerge, it was a subject of comment that, in comparison with the aeroplanes, they offered quite an easy mark for gun-fire.

This fact must be remembered, also. In actual warfare, the dirigible balloon would, inevitably, fall a prey to an attack by aeroplane. Aided by their greater speed, and by the fact that they could probably approach quite near to a dirigible without being seen, aeroplanes would be able to rise above its gas-containing envelope, and wreck the craft by dropping a destructive bomb.

Such points as these have, of course, weighed with the experts of Germany and France. Neither country has abandoned research work in regard to dirigibles. It is quite likely, in fact, that further improvements may be made with these machines, which will better fit them for use in warfare. But, at the present time, when any contrast of utility is made, the aeroplane is immeasurably the more practical weapon; and, whereas a limited expenditure upon experimental work with lighter-than-air machines is not to be questioned, it is to the aeroplane corps that any War Department must look for reliable, everyday service in war-time.

IV. Dangers of a policy of "drift"—Experience which money cannot buy—Trained men, not so much as machines, the criterion of strength.

In connection with military airmanship, there is no policy more dangerous than that which may be summed up in the word, "drift."

It must be admitted that, until quite recently, the official policy in
England, as regards the war aeroplane, could thus be summarised:

There is no danger in shirking the responsibility of a definite aerial programme—despite the strides made abroad—because a fleet of war aeroplanes can be bought or constructed at any time, should urgent need arise.

It was not a policy such as this that the Admiralty pursued in connection with submarines. Here was a new and untried addition to naval armament Without hesitating, or waiting while some other country proved its value in actual tests, the Admiralty used common sense, and spent money willingly upon a fleet of submarines. A full test of their use, in actual naval warfare, has yet to be made; but the experimental nature of the machines has not deterred the Admiralty from making definite advancement with them.

Had the War Office pursued such a policy as this in regard to aeroplanes, we should now have a fleet of aircraft as large as that of any other nation.

It is an undignified attitude to watch other nations at work upon the aeroplane problem, without spending money, and then to step in at the last moment, and profit by their experience.

From the point of view of strict economy, and setting all other considerations aside, such a policy might find acceptance, were it not for circumstances over which those who advocate it have no control.

At any moment, for instance, while one country is waiting for another to evolve an ideal aeroplane, a war may break out. In such an event, a cheese-paring policy would place its advocates in an awkward position. Even granting that they were using experimental machines, the nation which actually possessed a well-equipped aerial fleet, at the outbreak of hostilities, would have an immense advantage over the country which did not.

Wars, when they do break out, generally come quickly. There would be little opportunity for a laggard nation to rush together an aerial fleet at the last moment; or, even if it could do so, lack of organisation would render such an air-force practically inoperative.

Even setting aside the danger of war suddenly arising, and assuming that a waiting policy has no immediate risks, the negative programme has another fatal drawback. Even if, at the last moment, large sums of money were expended upon an air-fleet, and there was time to provide both machines and men, the nation which had neglected aviation would still be lacking in the one essential for success.

That essential is experience. No money, however lavishly spent, can buy the experience which France and Germany are obtaining, day by day, in their pioneer work in handling war aeroplanes.

Any form of aerial work is new to man; and at first, when he attempts it, he is a fumbler. He has no confidence in himself, and so he makes mistakes. But, if he is given an opportunity of being in the air a good deal, and has a chance of handling aircraft, not once or twice, but practically all day long, for months on end, he becomes, gradually, quite accustomed to his work.

Instead of being anxious, and inclined to get into trouble through an excess of caution, he acquires a cool, firm judgment, and soon astonishes even himself by his feeling of security when in the air.

This is the opinion of all skilled airmen; an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. How was it that the quiet, unassuming French naval officer, Lieutenant Conneau, was able to win all the great flying prizes during the season of 1911? There is only one answer: he was more experienced than his rivals.

With absolute thoroughness, this man began at the very beginning. He studied the laws of the air first of all; then he made himself acquainted with the construction of machines, and of motors. Afterwards he began to fly. He progressed from stage to stage, with no impatience, or haste.

He undertook cross-country flights to note exactly what climatic conditions prevailed. He studied maps very closely, and tested compasses. He grew accustomed to being in the air; and he learned how to combat adverse winds. He acquired the skill necessary to steer a straight course across country, and to make landings upon all sorts of ground.

And then, so equipped, he entered for the principal long-distance races. Because he was absolutely competent in every way, he astonished everyone by the perfection of his flying. He made no mistakes. He flew correctly from one control to another. He did not fear gusty winds. He did not damage his machine. And so he won.

There are, in the air service of France, many such men as this. Neither France nor Germany, for the matter of that, are content with buying and building machines. These they regard as being experimental, and likely to be superseded by faster, stronger aircraft. What they do consider of vital importance is the steady, irresistible growth in the number of their airmen, and the fact that, every day, these men are becoming more expert in the handling of their machines, and in the carrying out of their duties as pilots and observers.

The lead which France and Germany have obtained in military airmanship should not, indeed, be reckoned so much in machines, as in men; and England’s backwardness should be gauged in a similar way.

In considering the danger of a laggard position in regard to men, rather than machines, a point of great importance arises. It concerns the length of time required to make a military airman thoroughly proficient.

The experience of France and Germany has now proved, fairly definitely, that a completely competent military flyer can only be produced after an arduous period of tuition, and practical tests. It has been laid down, in fact, that to produce a military airman who thoroughly understands his work, a year or eighteen months’ hard training is required. The importance of this point is self-evident. Apathy may place a nation years behind.

A great deal, when the international relations of Europe are concerned, can happen in a year; and it is a perilous thing for any country to be far behind in regard to what is, admittedly, a vitally-important weapon.

Thus it is clear that England cannot hope to make up for a laggard policy even by the expensive method of acquiring aeroplanes, post-haste, at the last moment. We might buy machines, it is true, but we could not buy airmen of the type that France and Germany are rapidly training, in well-organised squadrons.

It has been assumed that machines might be bought in a hurry; but there is some doubt even on this score. Little encouragement has been given to home manufacturers. They would scarcely have facilities for producing machines in large numbers, even if it were a matter of urgency. On the other hand, the makers in France and Germany, always well supported by Government orders, have most complete workshops.

It might easily happen, in a case of urgent need, that we should be compelled to go abroad in an endeavour to obtain machines. In such a case, we might obtain them; or, on the other hand, we might not. Whatever the result, it would be highly unsatisfactory for a country to be dependent upon foreign makers for its war aeroplanes.

In the matter of aeroplane engines, the fact that we have no motor in England to equal the "Gnome" is because no financial support has been forthcoming, in this country, for aviation. To construct a successful engine, means the laying down of a large sum of money in preliminary tests. A number of experimental motors have to be made, and then "scrapped" again. As much as £10,000 may be spent, before success is attained.

In France, with a Government eager to encourage progress, by the practical method of buying machines, men with capital have been found to finance the constructor who has ideas. This is why France has the best motors and the best aeroplanes, and why we have to buy French-built engines and machines.

Instances such as this throw into clear relief the fact that Government apathy, concerning such a new industry as that of building aeroplanes and engines, has an evil effect which is widespread, and lasting.

V. England’s official awakening—The training of 100 airmen—The forthcoming trials of military machines.

Having dealt with England’s backwardness, it is now only fair that the authorities should be given credit for their recent promise of a changed programme.

In the first place, attention may be directed to the official scheme for training a corps of 100 military airmen. This, announced towards the end of last year by Colonel Seely, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War, has already been put into operation in a limited degree.

The officers chosen for aerial work are picked from various regiments. They are allowed to attend any flying school they select, and the authorities pay their tuition fees. When they have passed the tests for their certificates as airmen, they are taken in hand at the military flying school on Salisbury Plain, and are given instruction as military pilots or observers.

When they have attained proficiency in this direction, they return to their regiments, and are afterwards called upon, from time to time, to undergo "refresher" courses of military flying.

The criticism which is levelled against this scheme is that officers should be permanently attached to the air-corps, and should never be allowed to relinquish their flying duties. Experts who hold this view affirm that "refresher" courses are not sufficient to keep a man thoroughly au fait with such special work as military aviation.

As a matter of fact, the relief which has been expressed at the taking up by the War Office of any definite programme, has had the effect of robbing such criticisms as these of their sting. If the plan described were to be adopted as a permanent policy there would, indeed, be grave cause for complaint. French and German military pilots are placed once and for all in the air-corps, and are not withdrawn.

But the scheme of our authorities must only be regarded as a beginning. Directly any really definite work is done, the value of a well-equipped air-corps will be so strikingly demonstrated that there should be little difficulty in extending the Government programme.

The ideal, undoubtedly, is a large and extremely skilful corps of pilots and observers, who do nothing save perfect themselves in their aerial duties. An airman cannot have too much actual flying practice; in every aerial voyage he makes, he learns some useful lesson. The French policy is: once a military airman, always a military airman.

Naturally, with the avowed policy of training these 100 military pilots, the War Office has found it necessary to acquire more machines. From time to time, therefore, since the announcement of this scheme, machines have been bought from famous French firms—notably a Breguet biplane, a Nieuport monoplane, and a Deperdussin monoplane.

But such purchases have only been made to meet the most pressing needs of the flying school. What will precede any large orders for war aeroplanes is a carefully-conducted and stringent test of military machines, which will be thrown open to the world.

The conditions for these trials, which will be held in England under the auspices of the War Office, probably some time in July this year, were issued in December last. Critical comment has granted their practicability, and it is agreed that the successful machines will represent all that is best in military aviation.

One criticism, however, is that the sum of money which will be expended in prizes, £11,000, is not sufficiently generous. In connection with the 1911 French military trials, a sum of more than £50,000 was earmarked by the Government to be expended in prizes, and in orders for successful machines.

But, in the forthcoming English contests, there is no definite financial offer save the £11,000 mentioned. It is stipulated, as a matter of fact, that the War Office shall have the option of purchasing successful machines for a sum of £1000; but there is no guarantee expressed that such purchases shall be made. Of course, it is expected that winning machines will be ordered in certain quantities, and no doubt such will be the policy adopted. But makers cannot count, definitely, upon this being done.

However, moderate though the financial inducements are, there is little doubt but that a satisfactory number of machines will be entered for the tests. English manufacturers, whose inducements to spend money have, in the past, been so few, are determined to make a good show. Both in connection with the main prize, and also in a subsidiary contest for British-built machines, in which the principal award is £1500, the home manufacturers are keen to demonstrate what their machines can do.

Already, it has been proved that English workmanship has nothing to fear from foreign competition. All that the industry in this country lacks is the steady, regular production which is maintained in France. The building of machines teaches lessons which are invaluable. What English manufacturers have not yet been able to acquire, is the confidence, and intimate knowledge of their business, which only come from a healthy state of demand and supply.

The details of the War Office contest have already been so fully discussed that it is only necessary, here, to refer to their principal features. One of the most important requirements is that the aeroplanes should be able to carry a live load of 350 lb., in addition to their equipment of instruments, and raise this weight, as well as sufficient fuel for a four-and-a-half hour’s flight.

A three-hour’s non-stop flight, fully loaded, will be required. Machines will also be called upon to maintain, for an hour’s voyage, a height of 4500 feet. They will, in addition, have to ascend to an altitude of 1000 feet, at the rate of 200 feet a minute.

These requirements are certainly hard to fulfil. A machine, very greatly in advance of anything yet produced, will be needed to pass through such ordeals successfully.

As regards speed, the competing aeroplanes will need to attain a rate of fifty-five miles an hour, when fully loaded. Another requirement is that they should plane down to the ground, in a calm, from a height of not more than 1000 feet, and traverse a horizontal distance of not less than 6000 feet before touching ground. They will be called upon to rise from long grass, clover, or harrowed land in a distance of 100 yards, when fully loaded.

The silencing of engines is to be regarded—and quite rightly—as an important advantage. Minor points are that machines must be easily dismantled; that parts must be interchangeable; and that the observer’s view, from a machine, must be as unobstructed as possible.

The importance of this interesting contest, to be held in England, cannot be over-estimated. It will be a revelation, to all concerned, as to the capabilities of the modern-type, war machine, and should open up a new and satisfactory era in military flying in this country.

NOTE

The aerial programme of the War Office, for the year 1912-13, is dealt with on pages 181-187.