Oddball | 02 Jun 2013 5:59 a.m. PST |
From what I've read there was no evidence to back up his claims to the raid or witnesses to the effects (3 German planes shot down, more damaged on the ground). "On 2 June 1917, Bishop flew a solo mission behind enemy lines to attack a German-held aerodrome, where he claimed that he shot down three aircraft that were taking off to attack him and destroyed several more on the ground. For this feat, he was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC), although it has been suggested that he may have embellished his success. His VC was one of two awarded in violation of the warrant requiring witnesses (the other being the Unknown Soldier),and since the German records have been lost and the archived papers relating to the VC were lost as well, there is no way of confirming whether there were any witnesses. It seemed to be common practice at this time to allow Bishop to claim victories without requiring confirmation or verification from other witnesses." and if he is was granted victory claims without proof, did he really shot down 72 enemy planes in the war? |
HMSResolution | 02 Jun 2013 6:45 a.m. PST |
I very much doubt any ace in any war shot down as many planes as he was credited with. He seems to be in the same position as Hartmann in WWII; highly improbable claims, few records to back him up. |
Puster | 02 Jun 2013 7:23 a.m. PST |
There is "wrong" and "wrong" here :-) If you add up the claims of just the Commonwealth Aces in WWI, you get more "victories" then the German airforce lost pilots in the war. So no kills by pilots who did not make at to Ace status, by two seaters, anti-air or (gush) French, Russian or US pilots. The usual "pro British" response is that the Germans faked their accounts, although there is no indication for it – well, if you ignore that the numbers do not tally up. |
Puster | 02 Jun 2013 7:25 a.m. PST |
So, in response to the original question: we will not know. It was not veryfiable back then, and is not today – in neither direction. Chances are that many claims were made in good faith, and that pilots on the loosing side were in the habit of diving out of a fight and returned. More often then not the "victor" would not linger to see his opponent crash but rather put his attention upon the enemy that is not yet out of the fight. |
Great War Ace | 02 Jun 2013 7:38 a.m. PST |
I look at situations like Bishop's claims this way: If the people who associated with him at the time believed him, then Bishop was either a consumate liar, or had uber powerful friends who wanted to make a media darling out of him (like Otto Heidmann working with Stachel, in the fictitious but true-to-life story The Blue Max), or, most likely of all, Bishop was certain in his own mind that he did what he said he did. In other words, his stories, while possibly embelished with gusto as the yarn was being spun, nevertheless had the ring of veracity to them. He never made things up out of whole cloth. It was war time, after all, and any good dig at the enemy was welcomed for morale purposes. I am sure the Germans did likewise (ya think!?)
. |
gweirda | 02 Jun 2013 8:29 a.m. PST |
It was, iirc, official British policy to count as a valid 'downing' what was called 'OOC' (out of control) – they fully recognized that the enemy may have simply run away, but viewed the 'score' on an event-by-event basis: thus if the British controlled the 'battlefield' at the end of the engagement any removal of enemy aircraft was seen/awarded as a victory. Also, iirc, the Germans didn't count their pilot as 'downed' if he managed to crash land his shot up (even burning?) aircraft and return to service (even after a hospital stay?) – and since most engagements took place over the German side of the lines this happened often: thus the disparity in numbers for the two sides. As to Bishop, most of his claims/victories took place while alone (see: link ) and (again, iirc) more than a few of his contemporaries thought little of him – one even flew to Bishop's airfield to punch him? The 2 June raid itself -however true it may be- does make for a very enjoyable solo game! WYS! rules work well, as well as *ahem
cough* my own silly set, or I would imagine Herkybird's solo adaptation for WoG would do nicely – a commemorative game might be a good excuse to get some little planes on the table this afternoon? |
Great War Ace | 02 Jun 2013 8:52 a.m. PST |
the 2 June dawn raid is indeed a perfect "historical" scenario. And I am in the mood to play it, giving each of "us" a chance to do Bishop proud or go down trying!
:) |
spontoon | 02 Jun 2013 8:54 a.m. PST |
|
GarrisonMiniatures | 02 Jun 2013 9:51 a.m. PST |
I think there was an example of a (French?)ace who claimed a plane without anyone backing him up, only for another pilot t land and claim the same German – except he had witnesses. Conclusion to the story? Both pilots were awarded a kill! |
miniMo | 02 Jun 2013 7:00 p.m. PST |
Prior discussion here; TMP link Philip Markham had a very thoroughly researched article in Over The Front, Vol.10, No.3, 1995 The author had set out with an admitted bias in favour of Bishop and wanted to find info to back up his claims. Short summary of the research: * German fields at Esnes and Awoigt were vacant that day. * No German airield within Bishop's flight radius had Albatros D.I's or D.II's at that date, 2 Armee and 6 Armee fighters were all D.III's * No German reports of any airfield attacks anywhere on the Western Front that day. |
Mark Plant | 02 Jun 2013 10:45 p.m. PST |
I look at situations like Bishop's claims this way: If the people who associated with him at the time believed him, then Bishop was either a consumate liar, or had uber powerful friends Sadly you don't need either. A war is on and people want heroes. Once one is found anyone questioning him is in for a very bad time. There were plenty of other "aces" of the time (and since) who we know made up stories out of whole cloth. Men with no need to do so, you would think. Many wartime heroes turn out, on closer inspection, to not warrant their status at all. Sometimes it is official desire to cover up cowardice (e.g. those who fled Rorke's Drift) and sometimes it is the media looking for a good story. Finding some blowhard who will blatantly lie is the easy bit. |
CharlesRollinsWare | 03 Jun 2013 8:45 a.m. PST |
There has been a serious and concerted effort to verify all aerial kill claims from the Great War using the extant period records. The project certainly started with the aces, but goes far beyond that. Some folks proved to be very reliable in that their claims could be rectified with the enemey records on almost all claims. Others had claims that couldbe olny partially verified. Others still culd have few, if any, verified. The most notable person in the last category is Bishop. Not one (i.e., none) of his claims could be truly verified. As for his "VC" action the records for the German Air Service were remarkably complete and showed no record of ANY German airfield being attacked on the day in question. Furthermore, there are preserved intimations that upon his return home the damage to his aircraft – all in the tail section – was remarkable in that the holes all showed powder burns on the surrounding fabric surfaces – something that waould not be possible if the damage occured while in the air
So, the short answer to your question is
not likely. |
Great War Ace | 03 Jun 2013 8:59 p.m. PST |
Are these details from that "discredited" film, "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss"? |
Great War Ace | 03 Jun 2013 9:02 p.m. PST |
the records for the German Air Service were remarkably complete and showed no record of ANY German airfield being attacked on the day in question. Aren't the German records "lost"?
|
EnemyAce | 04 Jun 2013 7:14 a.m. PST |
There's no question that Bishop was a liar and complete fraud. I'd be shocked if he had enough legitimate kills to even make Ace. PDF link |
Great War Ace | 04 Jun 2013 9:50 a.m. PST |
That's quite rude and assertive of you there. What if Billy Bishop was my great grandpa? Would you say those kinds of things to someone's face about his great grandpa? How would you prove it? This seems to be a fact: the biggest, male ego on the planet is a fighter pilot. They were in competition with each other, even the least "kill" score had more in common with someone like Fonck or Bishop or Richthofen, than the biggest "killer" in the trenches. If Bishop lied or "exaggerated", I don't doubt that most "aces" did likewise, to a greater or lesser degree, human beings as variable as we are, after all. What I found disappointing is that virtually all of the "official" scores found in books of the great "aces", i.e. the national heroes, are fabricated after the fact. Somebody mentioned Mannock's "73" as mostly made up from anecdotal evidence long, long after the fact, to bump Bishop out of "first place" in the list of "aces" of the Empire. Yet we have the discrediting of the TV bio-documentary on Bishop. If the film is "officially" discredited as not portraying Bishop's character accurately, then where's the solid proof that he always lied and he didn't have enough kills to even make "Ace"? Many of the German records are "lost", assertedly. And we have the vast difference in the way Germans kept tally on their "downed" air crews, which mostly occurred within their own lines: if the crew walked away, it was a case of "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing", and it was not listed as a "downed" aircraft. Whereas Brits typically counted any OOC as a victory if the claimant was of the media stature of a Bishop. Two systems could not be more unalike. And the disparity is bound to be enormous because the criteria for making the victory claims is so different. It reminds me of Arch Whitehouse claiming that Richtohofen fudged his score, and he had proof, because he was not actually "shot down" by Richthofen, only sort of "forced down". What part of "forced down" and rendered inoperative counts as "no victory" or "no kill"? Whitehouse wasn't even allowing his anecdotal experience by Brit definitions. The Brits counted him and his pilot as a downed aircraft for the record, iirc
. |
Camcleod | 04 Jun 2013 10:55 a.m. PST |
Here is another discussion of Bishop's record on another site. link A number of people have looked at Bishop's claims and came up with between 10 and 22 as his real witnessed score. Also see: link |
gweirda | 04 Jun 2013 12:41 p.m. PST |
A tongue-in-cheek house rule for gaming: When allowing players to choose/fly as famous aces, I only allow Bishop to score a hit if no other (unengaged) aircraft is facing the action. ; ) |
Great War Ace | 05 Jun 2013 8:10 a.m. PST |
Well there you go then; that explains his success on 2 June!
|
CampyF | 12 Jun 2013 8:40 a.m. PST |
link People will believe what they want to believe. |
Great War Ace | 12 Jun 2013 1:48 p.m. PST |
@CharlesRollinsWare: Some folks proved to be very reliable in that their claims could be rectified with the enemey records on almost all claims. Others had claims that couldbe olny partially verified. Others still culd have few, if any, verified.The most notable person in the last category is Bishop. Not one (i.e., none) of his claims could be truly verified.
Quote from the CampyF link: Of Bishop's 72 accredited claims, 38 can either be paired with specific German crew names, or were verified by witnesses. Actual names have been assigned to at least 22 of these cases. By comparison, Ball has twelve names attached to 44 confirmed victories, five of which are indefinite. In relation to the other great Empire aces, if the assignment of names to victims were a requirement, Mick Mannock would rate 21 of 61, George McElroy, one of 46, Anthony Beauchamp-Proctor, three of 54, Ira Jones (a famous Mannock fan and detractor of Bishop), two of 37, and so on. Thus, Bishop's claims, in spite of all the innuendo, enjoy a formidable degree of verification
So which is it? On what basis does a view like Charles' rest? Campy's link shows copious source attribution. Bishop is a cool dude. My boyhood admiration is restored
. |
Belis4rius | 21 Jun 2013 4:45 a.m. PST |
Didn't Bishop come back with his gun missing? Why would you take your gun off the plane in flight on the way back from a raid? |
CampyF | 21 Jun 2013 9:26 a.m. PST |
Low on fuel, ditch extra weight? |
Camcleod | 21 Jun 2013 9:26 a.m. PST |
" Why would you take your gun off the plane in flight on the way back from a raid? " Apparently after he had landed in a field he dismounted the gun and shot holes in his own tail to make the raid story more believable ?? |
CampyF | 21 Jun 2013 5:36 p.m. PST |
"Apparently after he had landed in a field he dismounted the gun and shot holes in his own tail to make the raid story more believable ??" That's answering one unsubstantiated claim with another. |
Great War Ace | 23 Jun 2013 5:03 p.m. PST |
If Bishop really shot holes in his own tail, he had more chutzpah than I ever will! You could get yourself killed that way, that's what machine guns are designed to do to aircraft, break things on them. Nobody could shoot his own tail up without an extremely high risk of breaking the controls and (or) the airframe. Ludicrous
. |
Rabbit3 | 24 Aug 2013 5:54 a.m. PST |
I keep wondering, With all the checking of whether or not a German airfield was attacked on that day has anyone checked the records for FRIENDLY airfields being attacked. Wouldn`t exactly be the first time a `friendly fire` incident of that kind had happened in that war or others since! |
Great War Ace | 24 Aug 2013 9:57 a.m. PST |
That has to be the wildest suggestion I've read so far. I believe that the temporary, that is to say in transit, "airfield" is the best explanation so far
. |
Joes Shop | 25 Aug 2013 6:36 a.m. PST |
|
kduke42 | 06 Sep 2013 8:29 a.m. PST |
For what it's worth in contemporary viewpoints, it has been pretty well established that Mannock's record was intentionally pumped up by his supporters (after his death) in order to give him a higher total (by 1) than Bishop. They did not want Bishop to be the highest scoring ace for Britain. (In Mannock's defense, not only was he dead, but he was well known for 'giving away' kills to new guys to help them get confidence). |
number4 | 26 Jun 2015 9:09 p.m. PST |
I have a problem believing someone would land, shoot up his own aircraft then dump the gun just to claim a couple of 'kills' – it just doesn't make sense. The temporary field argument is very plausible, and there wouldn't necessarily be detailed records kept of such a place. Records also do go missing – we have a photo of my wife's grandfather in a cavalry uniform circa 1915; can't trace his service record because it's a Yeomanry unit and their records aren't held centrally by the National Archives, but he was definitely there. |