Quote:
Originally posted by Barrett+Jul 1 2004, 08:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Barrett @ Jul 1 2004, 08:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Signals@Jul 1 2004, 02:42 PM
[b] <!--QuoteBegin-Barrett
|
Quote:
@Jun 29 2004, 07:39 PM
[b] Long ago Al Lowe had a list of about 24 of BB's claims which were witnessed.* (We know, however, that merely having witnesses does not ensure the claimed result.)
|
Regarding Bishop’s corroborated “kills”, purely by coincidence when surfing for RFC data this morning and prior to seeing this thread (or Forum for that matter), I came across a newspaper article from a few years back.
Michael Hanlon, in the Toronto Star of 30 October 1988, wrote a piece on a new study that had recently been published in a British military magazine. This study redressed the ACE ranking on corroborated kills and it gave Bishop’s corroborated kills as just 13. This placed him as low as 110th among the revised rating of Allied Aces.
|
It'd be interesting to know the method of corroboration; 13 is a small percentage of 72 (ek-chually 55 since that's the number credited "destroyed") but far more than the
One that Chris Shores cited years ago.[/quote]
Barrett,
The author of the review, his paper and the date is all I know. I agree 13 is a very small number from a total of 72 and less than I would have expected.
Because this was a study made in the mid-late 80's my guess was that these were either corroborated kills at the time by third parties, or substantiated by reference to German records/publications some time after the events. This is my assumption only.