Spitfire Women - A BBC Documentary

[klr]

A recent documentary on BBC about the women of the ATA (Air Transport Auxiliary) in World War II. Highly recommended ...

[Millefleur]

Watched it, thought it was great

[mistermack]

I thought it was great, for it's time. But what jumps out at me, is the posh accents of the women, and of ex-pilots, when you see old footage.

The sex bar was loosened slightly, but the class bar was absolutely rigid, in WW2.
They would rather have an absolute nincompoop who went to the right school, than a working class person flying a spitfire.
The very very odd person from a lower middle-class background who managed to get into the air would tell stories of being ignored socially, and usually held the lowest possible rank for an airman.

The army was no better, they were "Lions led by donkeys" and many people must have died due to incompetent officers, who were only up there because of social connections.

And it's not a lot different today. When you get british officers interviewed on tv, they are mostly Ruperts, or GIleses, with plummy accents that are clearly the result of private educations.

What a waste of talent, and how criminal is it to put class before ability in the fighting services, where making the right decision can mean the difference between life and death.
.

[Clinton Huxley]

Good grief! Imagine you let some horny handed son of toil into the officers mess and he uses the wrong knife at dinner. The reputation of the whole regiment would be tarnished.

[klr]

I thought it was great, for it's time. But what jumps out at me, is the posh accents of the women, and of ex-pilots, when you see old footage.

The sex bar was loosened slightly, but the class bar was absolutely rigid, in WW2.
They would rather have an absolute nincompoop who went to the right school, than a working class person flying a spitfire.
The very very odd person from a lower middle-class background who managed to get into the air would tell stories of being ignored socially, and usually held the lowest possible rank for an airman.

The army was no better, they were "Lions led by donkeys" and many people must have died due to incompetent officers, who were only up there because of social connections.

And it's not a lot different today. When you get british officers interviewed on tv, they are mostly Ruperts, or GIleses, with plummy accents that are clearly the result of private educations.

What a waste of talent, and how criminal is it to put class before ability in the fighting services, where making the right decision can mean the difference between life and death.
.

Well ... yes and no. In fact, the class barrier did break down quite a bit in WW II. There was no place for class privilege amongst (say) the 7-man crew of a heavy bomber - it was too technically demanding a work environment.

[mistermack]

Well ... yes and no. In fact, the class barrier did break down quite a bit in WW II. There was no place for class privilege amongst (say) the 7-man crew of a heavy bomber - it was too technically demanding a work environment.

Yes, but privilige operated before they took off, and after they landed.
The pilots were almost all ex-public school, the gunners were mostly working class.

And you had seperate "messes" for officers (knobs) and sergeants, and "men", so the officers didn't have to mix with the oiks.

No matter how talented, you would be highly unlikely to pilot a plane, if you didn't speak posh.
.

[klr]

I thought it was great, for it's time. But what jumps out at me, is the posh accents of the women, and of ex-pilots, when you see old footage.

The sex bar was loosened slightly, but the class bar was absolutely rigid, in WW2.
They would rather have an absolute nincompoop who went to the right school, than a working class person flying a spitfire.
The very very odd person from a lower middle-class background who managed to get into the air would tell stories of being ignored socially, and usually held the lowest possible rank for an airman.

The army was no better, they were "Lions led by donkeys" and many people must have died due to incompetent officers, who were only up there because of social connections.

And it's not a lot different today. When you get british officers interviewed on tv, they are mostly Ruperts, or GIleses, with plummy accents that are clearly the result of private educations.

What a waste of talent, and how criminal is it to put class before ability in the fighting services, where making the right decision can mean the difference between life and death.
.

Well ... yes and no. In fact, the class barrier did break down quite a bit in WW II. There was no place for class privilege amongst (say) the 7-man crew of a heavy bomber - it was too technically demanding a work environment.

Yes, but privilige operated before they took off, and after they landed.
The pilots were almost all ex-public school, the gunners were mostly working class.

And you had seperate "messes" for officers (knobs) and sergeants, and "men", so the officers didn't have to mix with the oiks.

No matter how talented, you would be highly unlikely to pilot a plane, if you didn't speak posh.
.

To command a squadron? Certainly, some blue blood was normally required*. But to pilot a plane - even a "heavy" ... I'm not so sure. I think Max Hastings had some interesting things to say in Bomber Command. I must have a look at it later.

*James McCudden was refused command of RAF No. 85 squadron (fighter) in 1918, supposedly because the squadron pilots objected to the fact that he never went to a public school. But one of the pilots later told a different story, and said that they objected to his style of flying and fighting as not being suitable to command a squadron. This is certainly plausible, and IIRC, McCudden was something of a loner in the air. They had wanted "Mick" Mannock instead, the other great British 'Ace'. But he was definitely not public school material ...

[klr]

FWIW, here is a link to the first part of Aces Falling, a BBC Timewatch documentary about McCudden and Mannock:



... just follow your nose for the other parts.

[mistermack]

*James McCudden was refused command of RAF No. 85 squadron (fighter) in 1918, supposedly because the squadron pilots objected to the fact that he never went to a public school. But one of the pilots later told a different story, and said that they objected to his style of flying and fighting as not being suitable to command a squadron. This is certainly plausible, and IIRC, McCudden was something of a loner in the air. They had wanted "Mick" Mannock instead, the other great British 'Ace'. But he was definitely not public school material ...

Of course there were exceptions, I'm talking about the vast majority of cases, but there had to be some exceptions, to keep people from making a fuss.

It's interesting what wikipedia says abut Mick Mannok :

At 40 Squadron, the reserved, working class manner of Mannock did not fit in with the well-heeled upper-middle-class, ex-public schoolboys who made up the majority of his comrades.

So even the exceptions illustrate the general rule.
.

[mistermack]

Actually, as an afterthought to this, I think that the examples of Mannok and McCudden do illustrate the silliness of recruiting pilots from the mainly middle class, as the two best aces were both from a working class background.
It shows what a wealth of talent was wasted.
What was more amazing was that this attitude hadn't changed by the time the second world war came around, so they didn't learn anything from these two examples.
.

[klr]

Actually, as an afterthought to this, I think that the examples of Mannok and McCudden do illustrate the silliness of recruiting pilots from the mainly middle class, as the two best aces were both from a working class background.
It shows what a wealth of talent was wasted.
What was more amazing was that this attitude hadn't changed by the time the second world war came around, so they didn't learn anything from these two examples.
.

One of the questions asked of prospective British pilots in WW I was "Do you know how to ride (horses)?". While there was obviously a big class bias underlying this screening question, it also made sense on another level. If you could ride a horse, then it suggested that you had some aptitude in terms of balance and co-ordination. Only a very small proportion of the population would have driven a car at that time. A much greater proportion would have ridden horses, even amongst the working classes.

[mistermack]

One of the questions asked of prospective British pilots in WW I was "Do you know how to ride (horses)?". While there was obviously a big class bias underlying this screening question, it also made sense on another level. If you could ride a horse, then it suggested that you had some aptitude in terms of balance and co-ordination. Only a very small proportion of the population would have driven a car at that time. A much greater proportion would have ridden horses, even amongst the working classes.

That does sound typical of late Victorian thinking. I think it probably was a device to screen out the working class. My uncle worked with farm horses all his life, before he got his first tractor. Horse drawn hay-making machinery and all. And they went visiting and to church in a pony and trap.
But he never rode a horse, as far as I know. This was Ireland in the fifties and early sixties. Very few people actually rode the horses, they drove in carts or traps, although there was alway one or two that did. (The tinkers were the BIG exception).
I would imagine that it was much the same in England, the only people who actually rode on the backs of the horses were the rich, for sport, or the gypsies.

It sounds logical when you first hear it, but really, asking if they knew how to ride a horse wouldn't be much of an indication of aptness. Most people can ride to some extent, if they learn. If they refused the ones that tried and failed, I suppose that would have some sort of logic.
If you could drive a horse and cart, I think it would mean just as much. It's not as easy as driving a car.

That sort of theory that people used to operate by is quite interesting. There were loads of similar examples. Someone would think it up, and it sounded at first to have some logic, and people would just stick to it, and never question it.
Nowadays, people would do a study, to prove or disprove it, but there is still some tendency to do things based on rules that SOUND logical, but actually turn out to be a load of hogwash.
I'm tempted to start a thread asking for examples, because I know there are loads out there, but I can't remember them.

The one that always irritates me is the insistence on teaching people never to cross their hands when driving, even when parking. It was an instant fail in the driving test if you did it, but I've never ever heard of an accident caused by it. And I've never seen it written on a gravestone, "here lies John, he crossed his hands whilest driving".
I don't think they fail you for it any more.
.