"Marked for Death: The First War in the Air"

[The Scorer]

I have just finished reading this new book by James Hamilton-Paterson.

Using my general rule that a book should tell you something that you didn't know before, this one succeeds at all levels. I admit that I didn't know a great deal about the First World War in the air, but I'm amazed to find out how much I didn't know! In particular, it's a great surprise to me that we managed to win the war in the air given the lack of preparation and the complete lack of co-operation between the Army and the Admiralty regarding who did what and how.

The book begins with the birth of flight and ends with a brief postscript chapter bring the story up to date. It's a very good book, with lots of photos and plenty of quotes from people who were there, and I recommend it totally.

[MikeMeech]

I have just finished reading this new book by James Hamilton-Paterson.

Using my general rule that a book should tell you something that you didn't know before, this one succeeds at all levels. I admit that I didn't know a great deal about the First World War in the air, but I'm amazed to find out how much I didn't know! In particular, it's a great surprise to me that we managed to win the war in the air given the lack of preparation and the complete lack of co-operation between the Army and the Admiralty regarding who did what and how.

The book begins with the birth of flight and ends with a brief postscript chapter bring the story up to date. It's a very good book, with lots of photos and plenty of quotes from people who were there, and I recommend it totally.

Hi

I know reviews of this book are 'good' especially stating it is "well researched", it certainly has a good bibliography. However, reading it recently I found it to be quite 'flawed'. The author appears to have written on the RFC Training system without looking into it. For example on page 130 he states:

"One big difference between the Aeronautique Militaire and the RFC was the French insistence that their prospective pilots should arrive already knowing - or at least willing to learn - about engines. The British had a variety of opinionated but vague ideas about what sort of man 'the pilot type' was, and left it at that. Provided an airmen acquired some sort of competence in the air, that was enough. Anything that went on under the cowling could be considered a mechanic's job."

Really! The author appears not to know the CFS Course syllabus from 1912 (see page 31 of Taylor's 'CFS - Birthplace of Air Power') which includes the Mechanics of Gnome and Renault engines and Mounting and dismounting engines. Also he has included 'Wind in the Wires' by Grinnell-Milne in his sources and quotes him but has missed G-M's comments (page 40) when he travelled to CFS for his final test when he states that he was taken, as part of the test, to the repair shops and was asked:

"...what generally went wrong with 'Gnome' engines"

This was in late summer/autumn of 1915. From December 1915 the No. 1 School of Instruction (later S of Military Aeronautics/Aeronautics) opened for RFC Officers and this also included engines, amongst other technical subjects, in the syllabus.

It should also be mentioned that the 'Winter Training' schemes for the RFC squadrons in France both during 1916/17 and 1917/18 included talks on engines and other subjects for officers (and ground crew).

While there were problems with the training system for a variety of reasons at different times (as there were in other countries) the author appears not to have researched this subject much from what I have read in his book.

Page 21-22 has a bit on the RAF BE.9 'Pulpit' (a failed design concept with a 'cockpit' for a gunner added ahead of the tractor propeller) of 1915, this design he states "...betrayed a very British attitude that combined ingenuity with foot-dragging conservatism." The British built one of this type, however, the French during the same period built a very similar design, the SPAD SA.1 - SA.4 (also a failure) in rather larger numbers, many of them ending up in Russia. One can only assume that the design concept it was not down to any particular 'British' attitude.

I can't help feeling that even after 100 years the public is still being 'failed' by authors.

Mike