Poor Infantry

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
A question that came up for no real reason:

Why are fighter pilots (in our world) all officers? As far as I understand it, once you start flying, you're an officer, even though you only have responsability for yourself and that very costly craft, whereas in the army even when you're not an officer you can have the responsability for several soldiers.

Is it because flying is more complicated than shooting a rifle and the fighter is so costly? Or is it more historic - flying as a privilege for the officers?

Or am I completely mistaken?
 
IIRC, the non-officer personnel in the Air Forces are usually guards, maintenance and stuff like that, i.e., the stand guard, fix airplanes, sweep the floor, etc. That's what I saw here in Brazil. Dunno about the rest of the world, but I'd bet it's similar.

EDIT: It's probably a matter of instruction and qualification. You have to work pretty hard and study like hell to be a pilot. Not to mention the physical perfection required.
 
Being an Army officer, I figured I would be the expert on the subject here...:D

But no, seriously, I have many friends in the Air Force as well. In the United States, it boils down to the amount of education required to fly. You have to have a college degree, and flight school (BOLC III for Army aviators) is pretty much the longest of any officer training programs. In addition, the thinking is that each aircraft costs a considerable amount, and so must be trusted to a select few. (Even the maintenance personnel report directly to a maintenance officer.)

Now, it hasn't always been like that. The Royal Air Force (and the Luftwaffe, IIRC) in WWII both allowed enlisted pilots to take to the skies. More often than not, however, these pilots would quickly be promoted to join their comrades in the officer ranks (assuming they survived long enough.)
 
The US Army Air Force allowed enlisted pilots to fly in World War II, too - Chuck Yeager started off that way, IIRC. Aircraft were a lot cheaper and more expendable back then, though...
 
Pilots and Aviators have a responsibility far greater than just themselves. True that an individual pilot may only be in charge of himself, but he may also be the ranking officer between him and his wingman. He could also have a RIO, in which case the pilot always has command over the flight officer. But think about the responisbility that lies with him. Leadership training isnt the only thing that comes with being an officer, but also morals and ethics. A Pilot must often decide when it is ethically correct to attack a target vs the possible collateral damage that may occur. Remember "Smart Bombs" are merely bombs capable of locking on to targets, they still kill everyone within their blast radius, be they enemies or friendlies.
 
I think it's still mainly education. Or at least, post-secondary education has typically been the dividing line - those who have degrees typically are officers, those who don't are enlisted. (Plus, I suppose if you spent 4 years getting that bachelor's, you definitely don't want to spend your days manning the gates - presumably you'd get higher pay and whatnot as a civilian).

Pilots in the military leave the military with degrees they obtained while in it (Bachelors of Science, typically, in aeronautics). Officers have traditionally had post-secondary education, either obtained during training, or as part of special military post-secondary education programs (doctors, for example can go through this in exchange for a minimum fixed term of service as a military doctor).

That's generally been what separates enlisted from officers - officers have undergone post-secondary education and have degrees, while enlisted typically don't (because they normally enlist right out of high school).

Also, the reason they undergo this extra training is there's more to being a pilot than boring holes in the sky - there is also a responsibility to people all around you - shoot the wrong target and innocent people can die. This can often come down to decisions that are to be made in only a couple of seconds - and part of the extra officer training is to be able to lead when necessary.
 
I have to say Worf, you're actually somewhat mistaken. Its true that officers require a BS and enlisted don't; however, you will find, in the US military atleast, that there are a plethora of enlisted guys with degrees. In fact I believe the Air Force has a program where everyone earns a degree from their training. Its also becoming a lot harder to make it to the senior enlisted ranks (E-7 and above) without having a college degree. I have always found the requirement to having a college degree to become a pilot to be somewhat redundant. After all one can become an officer with a degree in anything. I mean anything. Its true that the schooling pilots and aviators go through is intense as far as the math and understanding of aerodynamics go, but having a college degree does not prove one's intelligence in any way, shape or form.
 
Maniac II said:
I have to say Worf, you're actually somewhat mistaken. Its true that officers require a BS and enlisted don't; however, you will find, in the US military atleast, that there are a plethora of enlisted guys with degrees. In fact I believe the Air Force has a program where everyone earns a degree from their training. Its also becoming a lot harder to make it to the senior enlisted ranks (E-7 and above) without having a college degree. I have always found the requirement to having a college degree to become a pilot to be somewhat redundant. After all one can become an officer with a degree in anything. I mean anything. Its true that the schooling pilots and aviators go through is intense as far as the math and understanding of aerodynamics go, but having a college degree does not prove one's intelligence in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true, even for the army. You will find most Soldiers who are SFC (e-7) and above to have obtained a college degree or at least be in the process of obtaining one. Issues on education matter a great deal to the promotion boards these days.

As for Yeager, I'll have to look into that some more (I'm somewhat of a Yeager freak)...could be the Army Air Corps let you train as an enlisted Soldier, but I still think the vast majority, if not all of the operational pilots were officers by the time they received their wings and full combat flight status.
 
being in the RAF I can tell you enlisted personal flew during ww2 simply because of the need for pilots however in the RAF you do need to be an officer to fly as mentioned before because of the qulifications needed however in the british army you can fly in the Army Air Corps as an enlisted soldier we have a running joke in the RAF that the reason only officers get to fly is because they want all the toys! if we had tanks im sure they would drive them aswell! wheres in the army they wouldnt even let an officer lose with a boom stick!
 
Sorry, I thought I already answered but apparently, I forgot,

Thanks for the answers though I am not completely satisfied. I still find it odd that a pilot will outrank enlisted men even though he carries less responsability (= commands fewer men) than some enlisted men.
I mean , a foot soldier also has to decide whether he pulls the trigger or not and I figure that ground combat is still more dangerous than air combat.

Thanks again.
 
Mekt-Hakkikt said:
Sorry, I thought I already answered but apparently, I forgot,

Thanks for the answers though I am not completely satisfied. I still find it odd that a pilot will outrank enlisted men even though he carries less responsability (= commands fewer men) than some enlisted men.
I mean , a foot soldier also has to decide whether he pulls the trigger or not and I figure that ground combat is still more dangerous than air combat.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

This thinking is quite correct.

I think one of the factors is the potential that airpower has to inflict significant collateral damage. Though each individual infantryman must choose whether or not to pull the trigger, the pilot of a B-1B must decide whether or not to unleash his arsenal on multiple targets from various altitudes. Even a single, fully loaded fighter like the F-16 has the potential to destroy multiple targets in the air and on the ground.

There are many variables in air combat that do not exist on the ground. More axis to manage, more weapons, and dare I say, more tactics. In addition to all of the complexities of air combat, there is also the simple fact that it requires great skill to be successful at. I think history has shown us many examples of what happens when an air force faced with pilots of little skill attempts to achieve air superiority.

Though the fighters of WWII seem primitive and simple by today's standards, it is important to remember that they were some of the most advanced of the day. The nations which employed them treated them as such; I think most nations, given more pilots than necessary, would have kept the aircraft to the officer corps.

None of this is to say that the role of the infantryman is either obsolete or unimportant. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. You cannot win without holding ground, and for this there is no substitute but the good 'ol infantryman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top