Why No Parachutes in WWI? The Deadly British Decision Explained

[@CalibanRising]

Liked the video? Keep the good times rolling by buying me a pint! 🍺 Tip with a Super Thanks or via PayPal: bit.ly/47p3xNT - Your support means a lot! Also check out my new channel membership.

[@maciek19882]

This idea that a parachute "impairs the fighting spirit" is so General Melchett

[@CalibanRising]

Missed opportunity. Should have tried to read the quote in Stephen Fry's voice, what!

[@dallesamllhals9161]

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Horatio! To you! Young fine 'Tommy' ....right behind you (A few miles..that is)

[@user-zx7dp3qp6u]

Kinda like strapping on a jet fighter now and not having a ejection seat. Brave but not very smart. The wise man tries to live to fight another day.

[@robertbruce7686]

Nyeeeees 😆

[@dallesamllhals9161]

..could be: Esprit de corps! Or do we all ♥ the french now?

[@ricardocorbie6803]

Sheer Madness!! Untold countless live could’ve been saved!! The fact that you went up with no armour plate, no side or frontal protection, sitting on a petrol tank, and no parachute 🪂 God such Bravery!! Rest In Peace Ancient Warriors🙌🏿❤️❤️❤️

[@dallesamllhals9161]

You forgot Bi-planes with the cooler above you (when inline engines) = Boiled too 😲

[@mbryson2899]

​@@dallesamllhals9161IIRC, on the Albatros fighters they moved the upper-wing-mounted radiator from directly in front of the pilot to the side. I once had one arm burned by glycol from a car's exploding upper radiator hose. I cannot image taking a full load of that to the face and head. The early Albateos design aptly illustrates the difference between _engineers_ and _end users._

[@joemorris2357]

At least balloonists had parachutes. Balloons were filled with hydrogen and when they blew up were a very real danger to the aviators shooting them down.

[@robertschumacher2707]

I always felt that the superior officers that insisted that they were worried about 'cowardice' encouraging pilots to bail out should have been tried, found criminally negligent, and executed by throwing them out of an airplane at altitude sans parachute so they could enjoy what they put so many of their own pilots through.

[@isolinear9836]

It's the same mentality of Ewws using NKVD "Blocking units" to gun down Russian units to prevent them from retreating.

[@davidelliott5843]

Russia doesn’t waste money training its disposable troops. Even in WW1 the cost of training pilots was wasted when they got shot down.

[@sheilaolfieway1885]

I think it's more of officers thinking themselves better than the people under them, but yes also i wonder what the cost of training a new pilot was compared to a new plane. The cowardice thing doesn't make sense either as wouldn't cowards either 1. fly away or 2. just shoot themselves with their revolver ?

[@Sideshowbobx]

@@sheilaolfieway1885 In a day of only limited simulator training aids and real flying to learn the cost of training and selection was similar to the relative cost of the aircraft. Resources starved Germany valued their trained pilots above the aircrafts should tell you all got to know. But it also demonstrates the absolute demonic attitude of allied superiors thoughts their fighting men - they had the technology available in 1916 yet made sure it wasn't used and their subordinates would have to parish. It just mind blowing sadistic to me as tactically wasteful from the commanding aspect.

[@LittleNala]

In the 1965 film; Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines, set a few years before WW1, there was a French aviator who kept falling out his plane, and into haystacks - plenty of haystacks in those days, so not unreasonable at all. What's more, he had a talent for choosing haystacks that contained at least one saucy mademoiselle, with inviting eyes, and waving around a bottle of wine. I didn't see it till it came on the telly a few years later, but I do recall a certain feeling of envy. Later in life I used to follow the grape-picking season (le vendange) all over France, and I always kept a side eye open for promising haystacks.

[@michelguevara151]

what made you think you'd find haystacks in wine country?

[@LittleNala]

@@michelguevara151 Because I'd seen the movie! I assumed it was accurate in every detail, just like all movies.

[@user-zx7dp3qp6u]

My father was a P-51 pilot in Europe during the war he flew 88 missions and he told me he always detached his parachute after takeoff because he wasn't going to be captured by the Germans because he was a Jew.

[@BigAmp]

By the sounds of it, he never had to put it to the test, which is good.

[@michelguevara151]

now *that* is a brave man.

[@charlesmoss8119]

It’s found that safety equipment in some circumstance alters peoples risk calibration - so a safety system may cause some to take greater risk as they have a sense of security - I think no one would have jumped for fun but may have pressed harder attacks as they felt ‘safer’ rightly or wrongly.

[@CalibanRising]

It does make me think of Douglas Bader 20 or so years later who claimed at least two BF 109s as "frightened". They had bailed out as he closed in for the attack. Back home, the doped canvas was still intact over his MG breeches.

[@robertwarner5963]

You are referring to "risk homeostasis" as explained by Bill Booth. Bill explains that for every improvement in reliability of sport parachutes, some young skydivers will add additional risks to keep their adrenaline levels up. Additional risks might include precision landing competitions, longer freefalls, solo freefall maneuvers, freefall formations, canopy formations, opening lower, BASE, wingsuit, etc. Rob Warner FAA Master Parachute Rigger and Strong Tandem Instructor Examiner.

[@garethhughes5745]

Good point. Even by todays standards of ejector seats, I think it would be in the back of every pilots mind though that many pilots get injuries during ejection. So its not something you would ever want to do, unless its definitely going to save your life.

[@ElsinoreRacer]

It's why anti-lock brakes didn't alter the relevant statistics. People just absorbed the additional margin.

[@darrylday30]

My grandfather flew in both world wars. He didn’t talk about parachutes, at least as far as my family remembers. I don’t think parachutes would have shortened the war. Had it been introduced early, the design would have quickly matured and the lives of experienced pilots would have been saved. Experienced pilots are more likely to return with their aircraft intact, saving aircraft losses. However, experienced pilots are deadly to the enemy. Both sides, assuming the likely adoption of parachutes by both sides, would simply have a greater proportion of experienced pilots shooting each other down. Certainly the parachute would have saved individual lives but only long enough to put them back into the fight.

[@twistedyogert]

Personally I think that having a parachute would've improved the "fighting spirit" since having an extra chance to survive would've encouraged someone to take more risks during a fight.

[@samrodian919]

Ah yes but the donkeys of Colonel rank and above back in 1914-17 were of a different century where the stiff upper lip was bloody concrete!

[@markhindmarsh2811]

It's quite a coincidence that earlier today I was listening to BBC Radio4 a programme about silk producing creatures . There was mention about parachutes . Apparently in WWII German chutes were more fire resistant because of the way they were weaved . Seems like German aeronautics have led the way in this life saving equipment since the early onset of powered flight Thank you for an other informative piece

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks Mark, that's something I didn't realize.

[@mrtweedy705]

And what did it cost to train a new experienced pilot? That you let die because you didn't give them a parachute.

[@q.e.d.9112]

In WW1, pilot training was minimal. Probably less than getting a PPL, now. Planes, as pointed out here, were very expensive. There was never a shortage of eager recruits for the RFC, so the authorities decided, quite coldly, that planes were more valuable than pilots. War is war, and for every airman killed, scores of his ground based comrades were dying in the trenches. By WW2, the situation had changed. The British were able to ramp up aeroplane production, so that even in its worst crisis it ended the Battle of Britain with more fighters than it started with. If every lost plane had ended the life of the pilot, they would not have been able to keep pace with the production of pilots. I have heard (but can’t remember the source) that in 1939 they actually took resources away from fighter production to build Tiger Moths, the basic flying trainer of the time.

[@mrtweedy705]

@@q.e.d.9112 My point didn't have anything to do with actual training amounts or cost. The real short sightedness comes with the cost in loosing experienced pilots for lack of a chute. Actual experience is priceless. Even the experience of a day or week in combat has considerable value. The plane is alread lost, why not save the pilot and benefit from what he learned. But then that's what WW1 was about sacrifice. It seemed almost not only the plan but the goal.

[@twistedyogert]

​@@mrtweedy705The math makes sense. I remember reading that the average lifespan of WWI fighter pilots was only a few weeks.

[@alganhar1]

To be Devils Advocate here, I had the good fortune to look at the cockpit of a flying Sopwith Camel about ten years ago. Now this is a modern reproduction, so certain concessions to modern safety had been made on the aircraft, part of those concessions was a larger cockpit space. Even so, it was tiny, and that was with a LARGER cockpit than a period aircraft. WWI parachutes were bulky, and to be honest even one of the seat type parachutes worn by fighter pilots during WWII would have difficulty fitting into that cramped space, especially if your pilot is taller than average. The more bulky WWI parachutes? Where is it going to go? Now this does not mean I think that attempts should not have been made, they should have been, but people are looking at WWI parachutes with WWII and later eyes, and forgetting that the actual WWI parachutes were a LOT bulkier and heavier than even WWI parachutes, let alone modern parachutes. That should ALWAYS be borne in mind when discussing such topics, and should ALWAYS be taken into account when trying to determine if the decisions made were right or wrong, especially morally as you are doing.... When discussing WWI issues, you must always keep in mind one very important question, what did they have available, and how did it differ from todays examples? To highlight this I will bring up radios, I had one person tell me that every Infantry Platoon of WWI should have had a radio. The problem with this is man portable radios were not invented until the mid to late thirties, and in 1918 a Radio weighed in at 2,000 lb and required two trucks to move radio, generator and ariel. So my question tto that person was quite HOW are you going to get a radio per platoon, and how is that platoon supposed to get that radio across No Mans Land? When considering the parachutes of WWI you must consider the same kind of questions. Starting with 'what did the technology actually look like then?' Only then can you make a truly meaningful, and correct judgement....

[@gregwarner3753]

I learned to drive when most cars did not have seat belts. As soon as I had a car (MG-A) that did I wore the belt. I have done so ever since. I also keep belted in airplanes. I do not take unnecessary risks. FWIW I was in the USN Riverine Group in 1966 - 67.

[@hmshood9212]

A plane might be valuable but a pilot and their skills are invaluable/priceless. Ernst Udet is a prime example saved by a parachute and rather than become a stain on the ground just ended up with a sprained ankle and went on to become a high ranking officer in the Luftwaffe.

[@Poliss95]

@hmshood9212 And thank goodness for that. He was obsessed with dive bombers so he had all the German bombers of WWII designed for it. Fast, light aircraft were severely hampered because of that.

[@russelfranke7331]

Do a study of pilot training. You would be shocked at how little they were trained

[@CalibanRising]

I wonder if this became a factor? Perhaps the cost of the aircraft really outweighed the cost of the man.

[@russelfranke7331]

They basically did not know what they were doing in the beginning. No trim tabs like today. They were athletic to fly. Mussels the whole time aircraft was moving . Many did not survive training. Search the archives for British world war one pilot training at the beginning aviation use. That would be award winning subject

[@AbelMcTalisker]

@@russelfranke7331 Probably more trainees were killed during training than were actually lost In combat due to nobody really knowing what they were doing. For example, one aircraft type used by the RFC for training, the RE8 was considered to be a "killer" when flown solo as a trainer. In combat, however, the type was seen as very reliable by its crews even when flown as a single-seater. It turns out that the combat crews knew that the type needed to carry ballast in the rear cockpit to compensate for the removal of the observer otherwise the center of gravity would shift to the point that the plane became unstable. Nobody thought to tell the training squadrons though and a lot of trainees were sent off on first solos in an unstable plane.

[@mbryson2899]

Raoul Lufbery (French/American ace, 17 confirmed kills) is said to have vowed that if his aircraft ever caught fire he'd jump, without a parachute, rather than burn to death. In May, 1918 his kite was set afire, and according to many accounts he did take the dive. Parachutes had not been issued. Curiously, there are also revisionist accounts that say he crashed when trying to unjam his weapons. I've always held those to be suspect, quite possibly spread around to deny the lack of a parachute being responsible for his death.

[@davewolfy2906]

Imagine the navy getting rid of lifeboats

[@heartland96a]

Reminds me if the story about why the military didn’t want to adopt metal helmets , that the statistics that point to increase of soldiers being brought to hospital with head wounds , so they thought this ment that helmets caused injuries , when it really ment that soldiers where injured but alive because the helmet saved their lives so they could be helped/ healed at hospital

[@markgranger9150]

Helmets.are dangerous in the jungle with high heat and humidity. You can boil your brain.

[@womble321]

Weight. It's that simple parachutes were heavy. It was only in 1918 that aircraft had enough power to carry a parachute. The idea planes could carry armour except in specialist situations, self sealing tanks if the tech exited were also very heavy.

[@Poliss95]

There were no self-sealing fuel tanks in those days.

[@davidrobinson4553]

It does seem a waste of skilled pilots, but hey nothing surprises me about the morons in charge of our forces during the first war.

[@Marcel-fo2cb]

Look at the morons we have today,The legislature building is full of them.

[@MaverickSeventySeven]

An excellent summary! Can you explore the true WW1 incident of a pilot named Captain Strange (?) Who, when trying to fix his gun on the upper wing of his biplane, stood up and held his joystick between his knees.....it slipped, causing the planre to invert with him hanging onto the gun!!!! He managed to kick the joystick, so the plane returned to an upright position whereby he dropped into his seat ....."That was close old chap" he said, curling the end of his moustache. "TALLYHO"! Seen from the trenches.

[@jeremypnet]

Captain Louis Strange. He had a Lewis drum fed machine gun attached to his upper wing. He stood up in the cockpit to change the drum and accidentally knocked the control column. He was hanging on to the ammunition drum. On returning to base, he was reprimanded by his commanding officer for unnecessary damage to the control panel and seat. I have to say, I'm a bit sceptical.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@jeremypnet To give him his full name, Louis Arbon Strange, served in both World Wars. Ended up with the following awards DSO, OBE, MC, DFC & Bar. The story is fairly widespread and I'm inclined to believe it. The Lewis gun on his aircraft was something he'd rigged up himself, hence the need to stand up to reload it, it wasn't a tested bit of kit. Later in the war you'd see the SE5a with a lewis gun mounted on the top wing, but that was on a curved rail so you could pull it down to reload. His bar to the DFC was earned in France in 1940 flying the last hastily repaired Hurricane on the airfield back to England while being attacked by ME 109's. He was 50 years old and had never flown a hurricane before.

[@JohnnyRocker2162]

Similar to the portrayal in Aces High where Malcolm McDowell fumbles with the magazine drum of the Lewis on his S.E.5a.

[@raymondyee2008]

Reminds me of “Flyboys”. Lowry shot himself in his burning Nieuport 17 as there was no hope for escape.

[@virtuafighter3]

Thank you for your research here. Good work indeed.

[@kenoliver8913]

Whatever the dubious merits of the argument that there should be no parachutes for combat it was plumb crazy not to give them out for training. Almost 40% of the RFCs losses occurred in training and, worse, many of the losses were highly skilled and experienced trainers in dual cockpit machines. But one reason the Germans gave parachutes out late in the war is that they realised that most combat was now tending to take place over or behind German lines, so surviving pilots could be back in the air quickly rather than being POWs. This led to the WW2 rule by both sides that if a parachuting pilot or a crash landing plane was coming down on his own side of the lines he was still fair game, but he was to be spared if coming down on his enemy's side.

[@hardyakka6200]

It would have saved many lives.

[@SoloRenegade]

and pilots may have fought Harder, knowing that if they got into trouble they could survive to try again the next day.

[@yfelwulf9930]

Pre war aircraft were referred to as KITES. I have an old book quite interesting it describes how pilots had no brakes and would land in long grass to slow down many were thrown from their craft causing some to strap themselves in with a belt."

[@NielMalan]

The video gives a lot of detail on the progress of issuing parachutes to fighter pilots. I can see that the excess weight might have been a barrier. My question now is: when were bomber crews first issued parachutes?

[@bobjohnbowles]

Never mind parachutes, I can't imagine a modern jet being popular to fly in without an ejector seat. Attitudes are very different now. No matter the cost of the machine, that is replaceable, but the years of training it takes to create a skilled pilot cannot be replaced.

[@ElsinoreRacer]

40 year pilot and lifetime military aviation info sponge. As a kid, hoovering up everything on WW1 air combat through personal accounts and autobiographies, it quickly became apparent that the most dangerous thing was the planes themselves. Routinely, the narrative included good old Biff who had the tail come off, or Chester had the fabric tear off the ailerons, and on and on and on. I wouldn't have taxied one without a chute.

[@geordiedog1749]

Great work. Very interesting indeed.

[@CalibanRising]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@joshuabessire9169]

"YOU! The pratt in the back!" "Perhaps the men would like to know why you're known as the Twenty-Minuters."

[@dougerrohmer]

I can't help comparing this to people who refuse to get vaccinated, except in that case it's something they do to themselves as opposed to Colonel Blimp and Co back at HQ. If one ignores the greater pandemic requirements to get most people vaccinated.

[@johnallen7807]

You are of course insane! The "jab" does not stop you getting the virus, it does not stop you spreading the virus and the virus has a 99.5% recovery rate anyway. I suggest you look at the large number of unexplained deaths, in the UK this is running at 15% higher than normal, something the MSM seem reluctant to talk about!

[@markgranger9150]

Read the book "no parachute" by Arthur Could Lee. A First hand account of an RFC pilot in WWI.

[@spankflaps1365]

Life was cheap so the regulations had to be written in blood, like SOLAS of 1914. The other problem was the low powered engines in Sopwith Camels early in the war. They weren’t powerful enough for bad weather. Many pilots were scrambled in emergency war situations, during gale force winds, and simply fell out of the sky.

[@dallesamllhals9161]

Sopwith Camels = early in the war.....you 100% sure?

[@DraigBlackCat]

@dallesamllhals9161 I know what you mean, Camels not appearing until 1916 it seems odd to say early war versions - but 1916 was early war for the Camel and, although famous for high torque, its motors were never that high powered. RNAS camels got 150hp engines as standard but RFC F1's went from 100hp up to 160hp wheras engines for SPAD aircraft went from 140hp in 1914 up to 200hp (some even 220 or 240hp) by war's end.

[@dallesamllhals9161]

@@DraigBlackCat Yeeees? 1914 and 15 = Early war, right? ....PUP 😛 IF later in WWI: Sopwith Dolphin a pretty cool(BIG inline engine & lotsa up to 4 GUNS) ?

[@DraigBlackCat]

@dallesamllhals9161 I tend to go with what I picked up from my grandfather (an old contemptible with the Royal Welch Fusiliers). He used very early war (aug 14 - aug 15), early war (aug 15 - aug 16), mid war (aug 16 - aug 17) and late war (aug 17 - Nov 18) with each set approximating to the development of equipment and tactics. In the v early war you rarely saw an aircraft and in the early war they were more common (a few times a week) by the mid war he said they were at least a daily occurrence and by the late war it was multiple times per day. As an infantryman he never had any training in aircraft recognition beyond what was in newspapers or films (which he only saw when convalescing at Etaples), but I digress. Yes, Sopwith Dolphins. British ones mostly had 150hp engines and French ones tried 250hp, but these were too unreliable so they went with 200hp engines, and these were fitted to later British ones. The four guns were seldom used in frontline service. One plane per squadron might keep both of the lewis guns for use against recon planes which could generally fly much higher, but many pilots ditched them cause they were a nuisance and they preferred the weight saving instead. I read that a few pilots had the lewis guns fitted to the lower wing and had them loaded with incendiary rounds but this wasn't common. I know they were very maneuverable with a great climb rate, but I've always disliked them due to their negative wing stacking. Last point of interest, Harry Hawker was Sopwith's chief test pilot took the maiden flight of a Dolphin and was killed (age 32) in 1921 at about the same time these were declared obsolete and removed from service!

[@dallesamllhals9161]

@@DraigBlackCat Okay? Sry' i'm just - Royal Life Guards Denmark - grunt(a few stripes. No stars!!) from the (Funny 3)* in the 00s. I know nothing about flying**...but you clearly do. *KFOR, DANCON, ISAF **Did jump out of a working flying machine once in the year 2000 though(Not a fan...even with a parachute)

[@jagsdomain203]

The psychological effect of having a parachute cord of could have made them fight

[@SoloRenegade]

exactly. they'd be More bold knowing they could escape afterwards.

[@CalibanRising]

I read something like this about seatbelts. People started driving more aggressively after they became standard.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@CalibanRising i hadn't heard that, but i know with insurance mandates, everyone drives like mad now. Their attitude is that of, "I have full coverage insurance". And thy act like I've committed a war crime when I tell them my monthly car insurance is only $15/month.

[@jmmartin7766]

Well, "pride goeth before a fall," so... *smirk😏

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

"they are too heavy". "they will cause our pilots to jump when then they could keep fighting". Callous bastards.

[@duncannapier318]

Awesome visuals, awesome video👍🇿🇦

[@ambientlightofdarknesss4245]

It is quite ironic, since in the next world war. Great care was ensured to make sure it was the pilot that survived an engagement. Self sealing fuel tanks, armored plates on seats, bullet proof glass and personal parachutes on all pilots and even bomber crews. A fresh new plane just as capable of fighting as the old one can be made in a month. A veteran pilot takes years of training.

[@ashleysmith3106]

I have in my possession the Model 1900 FN Browning 32cal Automatic pistol carried by WW1 Australian RFC pilot Second Lieutenant E P M (Evelyn Percy Murray) Shaw, later RAAF, who actually survived the conflict. His log book is published on-line, and parts of a German observation balloon that he shot down are preserved in the Australian War Memorial Museum in Canberra. Sadly he was killed in a training accident in 1931. Perhaps his story (although relatively uneventful) might be a subject for this channel?

[@Inpreesme]

Thank you

[@Poliss95]

What evidence is there that Henderson was unwilling to give permission to give them to his pilots? When was the report 'that was not published at the time' actually published? The BFI film of the 1916 parachute tests didn't look encouraging with parachutes getting tangled round the tails of aircraft or failing to open properly. The parachute apparatus looks completely impractical too. looking like oversized dustbin lids. The extra weight and drag would surely have made the aircraft more vulnerable to be shot down by enemy aircraft.

[@scottessery100]

9:20 what!! So pilots were plentiful but machines precious

[@Poliss95]

@scottessery100 No. It took a long time to train a pilot. Many were sent to the front with almost no experience. That's why so many were shot down on their first sortie. Those that managed to survive for a few weeks gained the knowledge that kept them alive.

[@robertmann9822]

Two commentators have mentioned German parachutes equipping aircrew. Details would be interesting, while leaving open the main Q. My father was an artillery spotter for a brief period. The parachute was strewn around the balloon under the hydrogen balloon and he hopped over the side when tracer (incendiary) bullets arrived from any German plane. He then trained in the RFC and flew most of their types. He seemed untroubled by the non-provision of chutes which BTW weigh only c. 5 kg which weight would not have been a reason to omit them. I'm not exactly sure that that older RNAS also withheld chutes. There's a research student's thesis in this Q. Perhaps it has already been done . . .

[@AbelMcTalisker]

Modern parachutes yes but the early ones weighed a lot more, something like 10 to 20 Kg depending on type. Frankly, if I was an observer on a BE2c about 1915 and asked whether or not I wanted to be given a parachute or a machine gun I think I would tend to go for the gun.

[@AndrewGivens]

Thought-provoking vid, as ever. I can't know for sure, but it seems to me that giving the pilots of aircraft which were powerful enough to carry them a parachute wouldn't have suddenly turned them all into cowards - or even revealed them as such. There seem to have been a number of cases in WW2 where a bomber pilot recommended for a VC or similar decoration after nursing his damaged aircraft (and crew) home didn't get the VC because of the idea that he was 'only trying to save himself (and his crew)'. So, the suggestin there seems to be that it was accepted that a pilot would prefer tp stay with the plane if at all possible and realistic. So, why should the men of WW1 have been any different in their courage and devotion? No, the unofficial line seems to be wrong there. How tragic and wasteful.

[@scottessery100]

7:00 so nearly as many were injured in training as combat?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@CalibanRising >>> Great video...👍

[@brianjones9345]

It would have been very difficult to supply parachutes at the time as backpack parachutes weren't designed until 1911 and of course took time to become common.

[@ronhall9394]

Now, Now, let's not let practical considerations spoil a good sensationalist piece. What annoys me is that the early tanks didn't have ejection seats - the madness of those people!

[@jeremypnet]

So you didn't watch the video then. It went into the types of available parachutes, how they worked and what their shortcomings were.

[@hmmjedi]

The lack of parachutes was a terrible loss and waste of life... most crews would have been happier to know that they could get out in an emergancy... the Air Board in this instance was not fit for purpose...

[@harryjarvis3143]

British air men should have been issued with a parachute. How could it hamper when you are sat on the parachute in side the cockpit. especially when they was there centuries years ago.

[@darrylday30]

Poor military leadership, granted on the merit of class instead of ability, infuriated the public. This later led to bright “lower” class individuals being given “upper” class education which eventually gave us the Beatles.

[@greggweber9967]

No parachute means only one chance at learning a lesson for yourself unless you happen to see someone else make a mistake. You have little chance of growing your skills if you die after losing one game of Chess.

[@tomwoehle3519]

Cause you can buy 500 bullets for the price of a silk parachute.

[@texasray5237]

Sorry but your calculations are way off. You said: that 50 cents and hour would be _"about 24 dollars per month"._ But in fact, even if the work week was only 40 hours, (and it was usually more back then, that would be 20 dollars per week, or 84 dollars per month.

[@CalibanRising]

Check out the full range of Legendary USA flying jackets: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/

[@Chevdriver]

2:44 24year old🤣

[@mikebauer6917]

In short, the cost of pilot training < cost of airplane. Conclusion; No parachutes needed.

[@jameswebb4593]

There was only one reason that RFC pilots were not issued with parachutes , fear that they will use them first instead of fighting. Balloon crews were issued with them , how many successfully escaped I do not know . Welsh ace 45 victories , was incensed when he saw a German bail out of his doomed plane . Considered it justified shooting them as they floated down, if we have to die , then so shall they. One of the common pilots claims , on both sides , driven down out of control . A dead or seriously wounded pilot in the cockpit . a parachute would do them no good. According to Max Hastings , in the Pacific during the USAAF's B-29 assault on mainland Japan . The P-51 Mustang was flying at the extreme limit of their range , that was why Hap Arnold was pressing in vain for the Twin Mustang . Pilots running out of fuel had two choices , ditching or bailing out . The Mustang was a notoriously bad swimmer , its under fusilage air scoop would often cause the plane to dive under the water surface . Hitting the silk was usually the preferred option , with disastrous results . The parachute would fail to open properly , and the pilot would plummet to their death. No reason was given for this , my opinion the humidity caused the fabric to stick together.

[@CalibanRising]

I used to hate flying out of airfields with glider activity. Generally it was fine as they had their designated areas to operate, but occasionally aircraft would drift towards each other and they are really hard to spot.

[@keithmoore5306]

a lot more living pilots at the end of the war!!! a fighter pilot ain't about to ditch his plane unless he knows for sure it's going down!!

[@20chocsaday]

Aircraft were expensive, people were cheap.

[@castlerock58]

I say old chap, we can't have our pilots surviving. It would be bad for morale.

[@BigAmp]

Check your maths. 50 cents per hour is $20 per 40 hour week (who worked those?) not $24 per month.

[@CalibanRising]

Right you are, that should say "week" not month.. Six 8 hours days.

[@petefluffy7420]

Are you telling us that parachutes were not used because they were an old technology?

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Lesson Learned - NEVER allow aristocrats to control the military , to mass murder the plebs.

[@janlindtner305]

👍👍👍

[@ronaldbyrne3320]

Should have been issued with parachutes - even a 10% chance of survival is better than zero chance. The decision not to issue parachutes was made by leaders firmly on the ground who didn’t go up in a wood and fabric kite to fight. Who’s the coward here? Also, it is not like trained and experienced pilots were an unending resource. 😅

[@robertmiller2173]

The Germans were always smarter than the average Pome!

[@imperialinquisition6006]

Not at all if you read anything else. But by all means, strap yourself into the Me 163.

[@Poliss95]

That must be why the Germans lost. Because they were smarter than the British.

[@dallesamllhals9161]

..'cause no ♀pilots in combat? (TEE-HEE-HEE-2020s😛) Pilot training weren't THAT long back then...BUT then THEY* found out: A skilled pilot is actually worth something/ALOT 😲 *OLD toxic ♂s with BIIIIG stars on their shoulders...(Did I save IT GoogleAI?)

[@davidhoward4715]

What is this gibberish?

[@dallesamllhals9161]

@@davidhoward4715 Har ingen anelse...hvad du taler om? Better?

[@banzi403]

Why no mention of billy bishop? Another poorly researched youtube video. Shame considering the obvious effort put in to the video.

[@DraigBlackCat]

Because Bishop was of no relevance to the story of the parachute!

[@banzi403]

@@DraigBlackCat Besides being the top ace to survive the war and discussing parachutes in his book?

[@banzi403]

@@Aquafyre you win the interweb. I'm too lazy to go to the library. I strongly recommend anyone interested in ww1 air combat read his book. That applies to all historic topics, dusty old library books are more reliable then youtube.

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks for the feedback. Obviously can't cover everything in a single video.

[@banzi403]

Out of the thousands of youtube history channels out their, I can count on my fingers the ones i fully trust. The least you could do is list your sources.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

👍👍