False Claims by Bishop

I have found two cases where it appears that Billy Bishop filed false victory claims:

On June 28, l9l7, he claimed an Albatros scout, the left hand wings coming off at 11,000 ft. The German 6 Armee reports for this date still
exist, and they show no casualties.

On August 16, 1917, he claimed a 2-seater, all of the wings falling off at 14,000 ft. Again, the German reports show no casualties for this
date in this part of the front.

You can find this information in the Ferko Collection at The University of Texas at Dallas. They have thousands of British and German reports related to WWI aviation.

Steven, Even if the reports you cite are 100% accurate, this does not necessarily constitue a false report by Bishop. We are all aware of the fact that numerous Allied claims of victory seem to be and in fact were wrong. This has something to do with the following: The Brits allowed credit for out-of-control and driven down claims, both of which could often have been a ruse by the German plane to get out of a dangerous predicament. There is no question that a number of British 'victories' were credited in cases like this in which there was no real victory. The fact that these engagments took place on the German side of the lines explains why, when such problems arise, it inevitably appears as if the Brits are wrong. In such cases they are wrong, but to suggest they are liars is going too far. I think any one of us in their shoes would report things the same way and ask for a victory credit.

On the other hand, if Bishop's report indicates wings breaking away and if the German records you refer to are accurate, then we do have a problem, at least with these two claims.

According to the authors of Above the Trenches (which is certinly the best reference I know of) Bishop "possibly" shot down two Albatroses of jasta 56 on 18 June 1918. That leaves 70 others to go! In comparison, the authors have identified abut 35 of McCudden's victims and over 20 of Mannock's.

[Billy_Bishop]

If these are the same records Ferko had that showed no activity for Jasta 20 from May to July, I have more of a problem with those records.

VBR,

Al Lowe

And in the case of this particular pilot, you've only scratched the tip of the iceburg!

[Billy_Bishop]

ice cube maybe.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Andrew_Smith]

Steven,
I think to jump up and claim they were false is a little harsh, I am no expert on Bishop, but with the British system of counting ooc's, it is possible that Bishop's claims were right. While researching Aussie aces I came across 9 different pilots claiming a shared ooc, so that is a victory each for 1 plane, as for wings breaking off, there have been recorded incidents where a plane lost part of it's wing and the pilot managed to get the plane down.

It is all starting to sound like we are trying to compare apples and oranges. Al keep up the good work, the same for you FokkDR1, something about 2 well imformed people debating on the forum brings back fond memories of my first visit here.

Regards,
Andrew Smith

Looking at Barrett's 'Victory Scores' contribution to this site I am becoming increasingly more confused about the Bishop matter. On the one hand we are told there are neither allied witnesses nor German recognition of the majority of Bishop's claims. In and of itself I dont think this forces one to conclude fraud, but it certainly does raise questions. Looking at the victory scores segment, it appears to me to be stating that 55 of Bishop's 72 confirmed victories fall into the destroyed/captured category. Clearly both of these terms refer to REAL (non-OOC) victories, dont they? It seems to me that in order to make a point to differentiate between destroyed and OOC type claims, the authors must have access to the facts about each of the 72 claims. How could such numbers be promoted/published unless they come backed up with accepted reports? Further, if these are supported by the record, how can an at-least 55 victory ace be so easily slandered? Please let me know if I am missing the point.

[Billy_Bishop]

Mark, It's simple. Since so many of Bishop's claims were made while on solo flight. (he had a "roving commision" and was expected to seek out the enemy as much as possible) he generally didn't have witnesses with him.

I understand it was customary under the circumstances to take pilots at their word when on roving commision. However, I would like to point out that Bishop had at least 5 and as many as 25 unconfirmed claims. So I have to assume that somewhere, someone reviewed his claims and said yea or nay based on some sort of corroboration.

Then again, maybe they simply flipped a coin, and Bishop won the coin toss more than he lost it.

Take it for what it's worth, but to discount his claims means you put more store in the surviving records of a loser than a winner. At least that's what's been pointed out to me.

VBR,

Al Lowe

"...means you put more store in surviving records of a loser than a winner."
Therefore, by definition, Soviet records are more reliable than German, and Vietnamese more reliable than American. That's a lot of faith in totalitarian documentation, isn't it???
Where'd you pick up that philosophy?