Officers & Enlisted as Aircrew

Zipper730 · Dec 30, 2019

I'm curious about some of the following

As pilots
- USAAC/USAAF
  - Why did they require pilots to be officers early on?
  - Why did they change that with the Flying Sergeant program?
- US Army Aviation
  - Why did they use warrant officers as pilots in addition to officers?
- USN/USMC
  - If I recall, they created a bunch of enlisted pilot slots in peacetime to get around commissioned officer quotas, but intended fully for them to be commissioned quickly in time of war.
  - That said: Why did they later see enlisted squadrons fielded?
  - Post War: Why did they revert back to officer-only pilots? The enlisted crew were clearly able to do the job just fine.
- USAF & USN
  - Why did they revert back to all officer pilots after the war was over?
- RAF
  - Why did they have enlisted pilots (seemingly) all along as both fighter pilots and aircraft commanders on bomber aircraft during WWII
  - Why did they abolish enlisted pilots?
- Luftwaffe
  - Why did the Luftwaffe include enlisted pilots?
- Imperial Japan
  - I'm curious why the IJNAS at least had both officers and warrant-officers (at the minimum) as aircrew?
As other crew personnel
- USAAF
  - Why were they so adamant about bombardiers being officers when the USN were fine with them being enlisted men?
- USAF
  - Why did the USAF apparently have enlisted crew, then later on, warrant officers in some crew positions; then all officers?
- USN
  - Same as USAF

tyrodtom · Dec 31, 2019

You do realize warrant officers , and enlisted personnel get paid less than officers, in any military , don't you ?
So some of it is simple as economics.
I went part way through the Army's WOC ( Warrant Officer Candidate ) flight training, know it pretty well, plus what happens if you don't successfully complete it.

Army Aviation went to the Warrant officer ranks for helicopter pilots, and fixed wing too, during the Vietnam era ( and earlier) because they needed a lot of pilots quick.
It takes less time , and cheaper to train WOCs on E-5 pay as pilots , than a 2nt LT, or whatever rank, at his pay rate . Especially when you consider only only a fraction of those who start the training complete it.
When the WOC fails to complete his flight training he reduced to the rank he had before flight training, and used however the Army wants. The failed Officer is sent back to his original skill, ( infantry, artillery , engineer ) full pay.
In the WOC training they're basically training you to be a pilot, with less time spent on the skills needed of a officer, than a OCS trainee would have had.
We had officers going through flight training at the same time, but much fewer than WOCs.

Zipper730 · Dec 31, 2019

tyrodtom said:
You do realize warrant officers, and enlisted personnel get paid less than officers, in any military, don't you?

Yes, I understand that. That said, it would seem to favor economics right?

Army Aviation went to the Warrant officer ranks for helicopter pilots, and fixed wing too, during the Vietnam era ( and earlier) because they needed a lot of pilots quick.

Okay, so it had to do with making numbers real fast. I'm curious why they kept on doing this -- last I checked, they still do, right?

It takes less time, and cheaper to train WOCs on E-5 pay as pilots, than a 2nt LT, or whatever rank, at his pay rate.

Then why'd the USAAF/USAF go all officer for aircrew?

When the WOC fails to complete his flight training he reduced to the rank he had before flight training, and used however the Army wants. The failed Officer is sent back to his original skill, (infantry, artillery, engineer) full pay.

So, it works out way better if you're an officer in that regard?

In the WOC training they're basically training you to be a pilot, with less time spent on the skills needed of a officer, than a OCS trainee would have had.

Seems like that'd be a bonus. Get people into active duty and in combat faster.

MIflyer · Dec 31, 2019

Not all USAF members of aircrew were officers, even in the jet age. Gunners were enlisted as were refuling boom operators. And many enlisted crew chiefs flew along on missions for cargo, tanker, and even bomber aircraft.

One reason that USAF pilots are officers is that Air Force pilots are more likely to have the kind of training and flight experience that was attractive to the airlines. Making sure they were all officers helped to retain them. Many if not most Army pilots were not trained in IFR flying. I recall one USAF officer assigned as liaison to the Army saying that when one of their pilots wanted to do cross country they often asked him to come along, even saying to him, "I'm glad I have you with me."

The USAF did have enlisted pilots. It's just that technically they were not in the USAF at that particular time but were working for "another agency."

I recall reading where a P-47 unit stationed in Germany just after WWII was told they could not go home until they had trained their replacements. The replacements turned out to be a bunch of Army glider pilots. Somehow, I think a P-47 and a CG-4 probably fly just a bit differently, but they managed to do it. I would assume the former glider pilots were all promoted to Lt once they mastered their new airplane.

Zipper730 · Dec 31, 2019

MIflyer said:
Not all USAF members of aircrew were officers, even in the jet age. Gunners were enlisted as were refuling boom operators. And many enlisted crew chiefs flew along on missions for cargo, tanker, and even bomber aircraft.

Forgot about the cargo and tanker crews.

One reason that USAF pilots are officers is that Air Force pilots are more likely to have the kind of training and flight experience that was attractive to the airlines.

Why would it be easier to retain them if they were officers?

The USAF did have enlisted pilots. It's just that technically they were not in the USAF at that particular time but were working for "another agency."

Heh

I recall reading where a P-47 unit stationed in Germany just after WWII was told they could not go home until they had trained their replacements. The replacements turned out to be a bunch of Army glider pilots. Somehow, I think a P-47 and a CG-4 probably fly just a bit differently, but they managed to do it. I would assume the former glider pilots were all promoted to Lt once they mastered their new airplane.

Glider pilots would probably be magnificent for P-47 pilots. They would have to know energy management...

FLYBOYJ · Dec 31, 2019

Zipper - very interesting questions here and a lot of dynamics behind the officer/ enlisted pilot discussion. Another item to look at is a pilot candidate having a college degree. I've done some research into this and found some interesting information.

During WW1 a pilot was initially looked upon as a "chauffeur" and the Observer was usually the officer and incharge of the mission. As aerial combat progressed that changed and eventually you saw both enlisted personnel and officers flying combat aircraft. Some of this was due to social status, pay and manpower requirements (already mentioned). If you look at the formation of the Lafayette Escadrille, many of the volunteers who had flight experience came from collegiate flying clubs (I believe Harvard). IMO romanticism and politics pushed the officer requirement and if the individual had a college degree, he was definitely officer material. I think as time progressed manning dictated the need and that's when we started seeing enlisted pilots. I have more on this but it's O'beer thirty right now!

MIflyer · Dec 31, 2019

Interestingly enough, on the B-36 typically there were two flight engineers and both usually outranked the pilots. Flight engineers were usually Lt Col and the pilots Captains or Majors..

Take a look at the flight engineer's station and you can imagine how much training and experience was required:
Cold War Gallery Cockpits

Zipper730 · Dec 31, 2019

FLYBOYJ said:
Zipper - very interesting questions here and a lot of dynamics behind the officer/ enlisted pilot discussion. Another item to look at is a pilot candidate having a college degree. I've done some research into this and found some interesting information.

During WW1 a pilot was initially looked upon as a "chauffeur" and the Observer was usually the officer and incharge of the mission.

That's actually pretty interesting: Did that apply to just the Army or the Navy?

As aerial combat progressed that changed and eventually you saw both enlisted personnel and officers flying combat aircraft. Some of this was due to social status, pay and manpower requirements (already mentioned).

So it had to do with the fact that some were from college (which made them officer material), and romanticism (rule of cool I guess) and politics (unsure exactly how)

I have more on this but it's O'beer thirty right now!

I could respect a person enjoying their food and drink. If I didn't respect it so much I'd be 150 pounds still...

FLYBOYJ · Dec 31, 2019

MIflyer said:
Interestingly enough, on the B-36 typically there were two flight engineers and both usually outranked the pilots. Flight engineers were usually Lt Col and the pilots Captains or Majors.

You sure about that? I've met a few B-36 FEs and they were usually senior enlisted dudes

tyrodtom · Dec 31, 2019

MIflyer said:
Not all USAF members of aircrew were officers, even in the jet age. Gunners were enlisted as were refuling boom operators. And many enlisted crew chiefs flew along on missions for cargo, tanker, and even bomber aircraft.

One reason that USAF pilots are officers is that Air Force pilots are more likely to have the kind of training and flight experience that was attractive to the airlines. Making sure they were all officers helped to retain them. Many if not most Army pilots were not trained in IFR flying. I recall one USAF officer assigned as liaison to the Army saying that when one of their pilots wanted to do cross country they often asked him to come along, even saying to him, "I'm glad I have you with me."

The USAF did have enlisted pilots. It's just that technically they were not in the USAF at that particular time but were working for "another agency."

I recall reading where a P-47 unit stationed in Germany just after WWII was told they could not go home until they had trained their replacements. The replacements turned out to be a bunch of Army glider pilots. Somehow, I think a P-47 and a CG-4 probably fly just a bit differently, but they managed to do it. I would assume the former glider pilots were all promoted to Lt once they mastered their new airplane.

In the early 70's link training and flying a OH-47 under a hood was part of the training at Fort Wolters, in the last phase of primary flight training. And continued in advanced training at Fort Rucker. They may not have spent as many flight hours training in it as a USAF pilot, but it wasn't ignored.
Without instrument training there would have been many missions we would not have been able to perform.
Night , fog, and mountains are just as deadly in a fling wing as it is in a fixed wing.

tyrodtom · Jan 1, 2020

You've asked a lot of questions zipper, a lot of whys, about a lot of different services and different countries.
You're getting the replies mixed up.
Take them one at a time.

buffnut453 · Jan 1, 2020

For the RAF, the decision to have officer-only pilots and navigators dates from the time when the RAF took on a nuclear role in the 1960s. It was determined that the decision to launch such a destructive weapon should rest on the shoulders of an officer rather than an enlisted crewman. Since the RAF has never recruited aircrew for specific airframes, that meant that every pilot and navigator had to be capable of flying V-bombers, and so they must all be officers. The downside of the policy was that it reduced the potential catchment pool of pilot and navigator candidates, which led to a decision that such personnel, while they must be officers, need not be university educated. Experience during both World Wars showed that social standing or level of education had little correlation to leadership ability in combat. Thus, to this day, RAF pilots can join up at the age of 18 without a college degree. The RAF retained NCO aircrew in a range of roles, including Air Electronics Operator, Air Engineer, Air Loadmaster etc.

MIflyer · Jan 1, 2020

In WWII I think the RAF was unique in that it had Officer Observers.

Of course at Midway the USN figured out it needed to provide some naval officers as observers on USAAF B-17's, because:

1. The B-17 probably was at least 10 times more capable of handling Japanese aircraft than the USN's favorite patrol plane, the PBY. PBY's flying at their 75 kt long range cruise sniffed around the edges of the IJN, ducking into clouds to escape. And they had to contend with Betty bombers operating out of Wake Island even when they were not near IJN ships. B-17's flew right over the middle of the IJN fleet. not hitting anything with their bombs.but scaring the bejesus out of the IJN.

2. USAAF crews could not tell a battleship from a rowboat. One crew even claimed to have sunk an IJN cruiser when in reality they had attacked a US subamarine that merely submerged. Later, when B-29's began operating from Saipan, a special slide rule was developed to enable the crews to accurately measure the length of ships sighted by using their remote gunsights.

Reluctant Poster · Jan 1, 2020

It was the class system. Officers were gentlemen, enlisted men were not. A college education in the 20s and 30s was a good way to ensure that only those with money need apply.

Reluctant Poster · Jan 1, 2020

MIflyer said:
In WWII I think the RAF was unique in that it had Officer Observers.

Of course at Midway the USN figured out it needed to provide some naval officers as observers on USAAF B-17's, because:

1. The B-17 probably was at least 10 times more capable of handling Japanese aircraft than the USN's favorite patrol plane, the PBY. PBY's flying at their 75 kt long range cruise sniffed around the edges of the IJN, ducking into clouds to escape. And they had to contend with Betty bombers operating out of Wake Island even when they were not near IJN ships. B-17's flew right over the middle of the IJN fleet. not hitting anything with their bombs.but scaring the bejesus out of the IJN.

2. USAAF crews could not tell a battleship from a rowboat. One crew even claimed to have sunk an IJN cruiser when in reality they had attacked a US subamarine that merely submerged. Later, when B-29's began operating from Saipan, a special slide rule was developed to enable the crews to accurately measure the length of ships sighted by using their remote gunsights.

All airmen had difficulty in correctly identifying ships from the air including the USN.

buffnut453 · Jan 1, 2020

Reluctant Poster said:
It was the class system. Officers were gentlemen, enlisted men were not. A college education in the 20s and 30s was a good way to ensure that only those with money need apply.

Not sure I buy that argument entirely, and certainly not across all nations. WW1 proved that being a gentleman did not necessarily make that person an effective leader. Also, air forces tended to demand higher technical expertise, which demanded men who tended to be more independently-minded.

The RFC/RAF experience during WW1 showed that even relatively poorly-educated men could succeed if they had sufficient technical acumen and could "think in 3D". Thus social status was less significant than, for example, in the British Army. The RAF continued to recruit NCO pilots between the wars.

Reluctant Poster · Jan 1, 2020

buffnut453 said:
Not sure I buy that argument entirely, and certainly not across all nations. WW1 proved that being a gentleman did not necessarily make that person an effective leader. Also, air forces tended to demand higher technical expertise, which demanded men who tended to be more independently-minded.

The RFC/RAF experience during WW1 showed that even relatively poorly-educated men could succeed if they had sufficient technical acumen and could "think in 3D". Thus social status was less significant than, for example, in the British Army. The RAF continued to recruit NCO pilots between the wars.

But they weren't allowed to be officers.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 1, 2020

Reluctant Poster said:
But they weren't allowed to be officers.

Tell that to them

Reluctant Poster · Jan 1, 2020

FLYBOYJ said:
Tell that to them

View attachment 565622 View attachment 565623

Certainly wartime broke down some of the barriers. I think all pilots should have been officers. They had the same responsibilities but were not allowed to share the perks and I believe were paid less as well. Often they were reduced in rank after hostilities ended.

George H. Holmes - Wikipedia

FLYBOYJ · Jan 1, 2020

Reluctant Poster said:
Certainly wartime broke down some of the barriers. I think all pilots should have been officers. They had the same responsibilities but were not allowed to share the perks and I believe were paid less as well. Often they were reduced in rank after hostilities ended.

George H. Holmes - Wikipedia

That's because many of these folks were given field commissions. There were also many who maintained their rank once they were able to achieve a full commission. Chuck Yeager came up though the enlisted ranks IIRC.

I believe the mission and the manning requirements should determine if a pilot is an officer or not. For example there is no reason why you need an officer to fly a smaller transport or liaison aircraft. WW2 showed that a college education doesn't mean one is capable of flying an aircraft in combat and I believe the same holds true today as do some other folks. Air Force May Approve Enlisted Pilots for First Time in 75 Years

Officers & Enlisted as Aircrew

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads