"Who shot down the Red Baron?" Topic

I was reading this bit of media fluff:
link

Is there any actual consensus or, even, proof as to who actually shot Von Richthoffen down?

Snoopy never managed to.

No story available at your link ochoin but wasn't it attributed to some Australian machine gunners.

Nothing came up on the link for me, just a 404….

I thought that a fair bit of research had been done and it was pretty well decided that the AIF gunners on the ground shot him down?

Try this: link

interesting, got a 404 on that one too. Wonder whats going on with my machine….

This is one commentary from the link below:
link

"It is now considered all but certain by historians, doctors, and ballistics experts that von Richthofen was killed by an AA machine gunner firing from the ground, for a number of reasons. Autopsies revealed that the wound which killed the Baron was caused by a bullet moving in an upward motion. It was reported that a spent .303 bullet was found inside Richthofen's clothing. These facts, and the angle at which the bullet passed through Richthofen's body, suggest that he was killed by a long-distance, low velocity shot from a ground-based weapon. Popkin was an experienced AA gunner, the volume of fire from the Vickers was far greater (at least 450 rounds per minute) than the bolt-action Lee-Enfield rifles (up to 30 rounds per minute) used by the infantry, and Popkin was the only machine gunner known to have fired at Richthofen from the right, and from a long distance, immediately before he landed."

But then, who really knows?

I think Canadian Roy Browne got the credit

The british government gave the kill ring to Browne.

Killshot came from the grassy knoll.

I've read several accounts of the shoot-down and am
convinced it was Sgt. Popkin's shooting which brought
the Baron down.

Yes, Sgt Popkin but Roy Brown was given credit.

Tango did it

There was rather a good UK TV documentary some years ago which showed it was an Australian machine gunner. It was on TV so it must be true.

Tango is innocent!

Canadian pilot Roy Brown got credit during the war for propaganda purposes.

The primary supporting evidence for this is in the Official Canadian History of the Great War, published shortly afterwards — describes that it was most likely Australian ground gunners.

Alway got the story Roy Brown got the credit but anti aircraft fire most likely. Can't have random fire bring down a hero can you?

How about a team effort? Browne put him there and the Aussies took him out. A Commonwealth score.

I very recently watched a TV documentary on this question, which also concluded that Richthofen's wound had to have been inflicted by ground fire. Three Australians are known to have fired from the ground at his plane with Lewis machine guns. They concluded that Popkin could not have made the shot because the angle of wound entry would not have been possible from his position. They made experiments with an expert marksman firing a laser device from ground positions at a light plane flying Richthofen's known path, and decided that another Australian machine gunner (I think the name was Snowy Evans, but not positive about that) was the most likely candidate.

I will add that there is no way to be 100% certain because any infantryman who decided to take a pot shot with his rifle could have made a wildly lucky hit. Brown's Vickers guns, the Lewis guns, and the Enfield rifle all used the same .303 bullet, so the round found in Richthofen's clothing proves nothing in itself.

There's a memorial at the crash site in France crediting the Australian machine gunners.

I seem to recall that Brown's (or is it Browne's) combat report noted that the Triplane appeared to 'stagger' in the air when he fired at it at quite long range. Various documentaries and books I've read argue that the possible angles the planes may have been at relative to each other does make it possible for Brown to have fired the critical shot after all but ground fire is more far likely to have scored the critical hit.

I've not read a full report on the state of the Dr1 but I find it slightly odd that we are talking about one bullet hit when multiple machine guns were firing at him – were there any other bullet strikes to the plane? If not might that suggest that it is possible that a lone rifle shot caused the critical hit?

The Red Baron's last words were "Kaptz."
He was mortally wounded but still managed to land his plane and was approached by British soldiers.

FWIW I concur with the Snowy Evans attribution.

B

I heard he asked for one last wienerschnitzel and the chance to meet Eddie Rickenbacker?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

I just finished writing an article for a '100 Years Ago Today' thread I've been compiling since the anniversary of the war's beginning. Every single major ace in that war who died was surrounded by controversy.

Arthur Roy Brown made his own case at the time, and his story is interesting. That said, the ground gunners seem to have the best case. The biggest complication is that as soon as word spread about the identity of the victim the plane was ravaged by souvenir hunters. There was hardly a scrap of fabric left on the plane, so it is impossible to determine how many times the machine itself was hit and from what direction.

The "autopsy" consisted of two separate examinations of the body, but it was not cut open and examined at length, and conjecture about which was the entry and which the exit wound seems to be just that – conjecture. What it all comes down to is that there is no definitive answer and at this late date never will be.

Snoopy never managed to.

What?!?! Ah, c'mon – say it ain't so, Winston……

+1 Unlucky General

End result is the same either way

I tend to believe MvR wound up in a crossfire situation whether he knew it or not,between Brown and the Aussie ground fire.

No definitive proof as to who actually shot Von Richthoffen down.
But the autopsy showed an entrance wound on his right rear side just below the armpit and an exit wound on his upper
left-side chest. The bullet thus traveled on a slight upper trajectory from right to left.
This would rule out Brown who approached MVR from the rear.
Brown said he saw bullets hitting MVRs plane but whats left of the tail in one pic doesn't reveal any obvious holes.
Someone on the ground had to have fired the fatal shot, either Popkin's MG burst or some very lucky rifleman.

As I said earlier, the "autopsy" was an examination done without any opening of the body to determine the exact trajectory, and the two holes were not determined to be entry or exit wounds, just holes.

Saying that Brown could be ruled out based on trajectory assumes that von Richthofen was flying straight and level at the time he was shot. Since he was chasing May, who was twisting and turning as much as he could, von Richthofen was certainly doing the same. What was the exact attitude of his plane at the moment he was hit? That is not mentioned in any of the reports. That's why there's a controversy.

The Officers who performed one of the autopsies seemed to be sure:

Australian ground troops, Vickers team.

It was Sgt. Cedric Popkin of an Australian of an anti-aircraft machine gun company. He died homeless and unknown :`(

The Officers who performed one of the autopsies seemed to be sure:

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

@ Camcleod

Those two reports contradict each other…!

Say what ?
Into his right rear side upwards to exit on his front left.

Aircraft attitude matters, but ground reports say that MVR was flying fairly straight toward May and Brown approached from the rear, so ground fire is the source of the fatal shot.

The report is pretty clear on where the entrance and exit wounds are and they make an opinion that the wounds could not have come from ground fire.

Having said that, the "autopsy" is hardly an autopsy, and the examining officers readily admit to that. It is a simple "surface examination". My read is that the bullet entered from the back, hit and shattered the 9th rib, ricocheted back to hit the spinal column, and moved again forward exiting in the chest. The fact that the exit wound is two inches higher than the entrance wound can be explained by the deflecting movement of the bullet internally.

The odd sentence is on the left handed side where the authors state that the bullet didn't deflect. It's hard to read the word before "…..the exit wound would have been larger".

Into his right rear side upwards to exit on his front left.

Aircraft attitude matters,…..

Assuming bullets move in perfect straight lines within bodies. Not according to their probing.

The left hand account says the wound could not have been caused by fire from the ground.

Who killed MvR will never be resolved!

Browne got credited with the victory, deservingly so, one must understand the term "victory" used by the British. Too many people today confuse "victory with kill" some victories were kills others were not.

1) A British could be credited with a victory for destroying an enemy plane, for driving it down out of control, capturing it, or destroying an enemy observation balloon, or for forcing an enemy aircraft to land in either Allied or enemy territory.