Why the Fascination with Luke?

Cox,
Here I am, a Canuck in Alabama, and my you have to start in on American icons.
I agree that there were better pilots than Luke. Willy Coppens bagged more balloons, and he only used one gun. The number of non-American pilots with more kills is as long as your arm. Billy Bishop shot down an obscene number of Germans in his last week or two at the front before going back to Canada. Fonck shot down multiple Germans with fewer bullets than I have fingers and toes. I just think that Luke's story has the makings of not only a tear-jerking made for TV movie ("Oh mon cher, pleeze do not go back to zee front. Leave les ballons pour les autres pilotes.sobsob""Sorry lil lady, but ah reckon ah'm not goin' home anyways, least not 'til ah finish the job ah've come to do") or at least a FOX special ("Tonight on FOX...you'll see dramatic footage of a daring night-time attack WHEN BALLOONS GO WRONG"). This kind of thing seems to go over well here, and is easy to pass on from one generation to the next.
I do think it is unfortunate that you have given the impression that you use "survival" as a tie-breaker when determining "greatness". It seems to have led to some misunderstanding. Greatness in a pilot (or anyone else) is a judgement call which reflects as much upon the admirer's view of history and the world as it does on the deeds done in battle 80 years ago.

Graham,

The individuals you refer to could have also been killed had the war continued. What if the war had ended on April 7, 1918? In that case you would count Richthofen as the best pilot because he would have survived the war with the highest score. I agree with you that credit has to be given to those who did survive, however. Udet may be a better pilot than Lufbery, for instance, but is he a better pilot because his list of issue gear had 'parachute' written on it while Lufbery's didn't? If they hadn't issued Udet a parachute, he would have been dead in June 1918 with a grand total of 35 kills. If Lufbery would have somehow won Udets parachute in a poker game or something before May 1918 who knows what he would have done and whether he would have survived the war.

Regards

MDD

I think the fascination is the US has little to no heros from WWI in their national psyche than Rickenbacker and Luke ( i cant think of one US general off the top of my head ). Rickenbacker survived so hard ot make legends around him when he could refute them himself also Rickenbacker was staid , moralistic and so conservative his urine was red white and blue.

Luke on the other hand fits the same mold as Stone Cold Steve Austin , he is an anti authority figure which is extremely popular with 90's culture and young males in particular. Luke also has the advantage he is dead , so legends can be built up around him without being refuted by Lukes own mouth for 40 years after the war.

Luke deserves his place in US History but i think those that idealise and idolise Luke the most are young males. In the same way Steve Austin is a mirror to modern US society , so is Luke.

cam

[Barrett]

Cam ol' buddy: I don't think we're talking about the same Cap'n Eddie. The CO of the 94th Aero Squadron was a flamboyant, hard-charging (i.e., driving, flying, whatever) promoter who told his guys that his ambition was to die in bed at 90--shot by a jealous husband. He grew in stature under the favorable circumstances he found in life (the airline industry especially) and obviously toned down his wartime persona, but he was a long-long way from the prude he has been painted--red/white/blue or any other colors!

Bravo Micheal Dailey. Excellent point. There are so many factors we must consider. Imagine for a moment-flying along in your Spad , full throttle, through the anti-aircraft fire, the machine gun fire, the small arms fire, keeping an eye peeled for Fokker DVII's pouncing on you, suddenly the balloon is in your sights! You pour machine gun fire into it. Why does'nt it burn? Suddenly it goes up with a whoomp! You still have to get through the small arms fire, the machine gun fire and the anti- aircraft fire again and hope the Fokker DVII's don't pounce you on the way out. This takes guts! I mean real guts. To do it time and time again. What excites me about the making of a movie about Luke is the new computerized technology of movie making. In the movie "Titanic" they showed the ship under full steam on the Atlantic. It was beautiful. We should now be able to see a flight of Spads or Fokkers in full flight , correct to the smallest detail, instead of the usual Dehavilland Tiger Moths in WW1 paint.

Several replies ...

Michael: had the war continued, aces like Collishaw and Fonck could certainly have been killed ... they could also have scored many more kills! MvR wasn't going to shoot a whole lot more e/a down had the war continued : )

FelixF3: I never questioned Lukes guts ... he was certainly a daring man. However, daring doesn't necessarily make you a good combat pilot. Also, the things that excite you about a Luke movie appear to have nothing to do with Luke! Couldn't you get the same special effects in a movie about a better pilot, like Don MacLaren?

Manfred: Bishop was credited with 12 victories in 4 days, and Collishaw shot down 6 AlB D.V's in a single day, flying a Triplane. What makes these accomplishments any less outstanding than 18 victories in 17 days? Now consider that Bishop and Collishaw didn't have to kill themselves to do it ....

Graham

Oh please! Here we go again. Another bait and switch thread. As cam circles above, hidden by the sun, Graham throws chum in the water.

Question: "What makes these accomplishments any less outstanding than 18 victories in 17 days?" Answer: Mathematics

cam old boy, you're beginning to sound like a broken record. You used the same line in a Rickenbacker thread several months ago. But hang onto it, it could be useful in a thread about Laddie Roy. ;0)

Ta lads, it's been fun but I'm off to find a more rewarding thread.

[Billy_Bishop]

1. Luke's OFFICIAL score (before USAFHS 133) was 4 aircraft and 14 balloons.
(sorry Mutley, but I've not seen any official documents saying otherwise.)

2. According to his DFC citation Bishop scored 25 victories in 12 days. I think this was 12 days of combat as the time period is certainly longer than that, with a gap in between of about 11 days.

3. Luke wasn't killed in aerial combat. He was killed on the ground. Yes he was shot down, or was forced to land his plane due to damage, but consider this. Bishop crashed his smoking SE-5a into a tree on one mission. He barely escaped death that time.

4. More than a few "surviving" WWI pilots died in flying accidents AFTER the war.

I don't think you can base someone's flying skill, or lack there of, simply on whether or not they survived the war.

Consider 1st Lt. Robert "Butcher Bob" Hanson USMC. He shot down 25 Japanese aircraft in just 3 weeks. 20 of those he got within a 6 day period. He crashed during an escort mission. I suppose by your standards he's a mediocre pilot because he didn't survive the war.

What about Thomas McGuire? He shot 38 Japanese aircraft, and he's the 2nd leading US ace ever. I guess he's just a crumb bum for not surviving though.

Or, how about Richard I. Bong? 40 victories, the #1 US Ace to date, and technically he didn't survive the war as he died in a flying accident before the Japanese surrendered. I guess he's just a lousy pilot.

Here's a good one. How about Hans-Joachim Marseille?? 158 victories. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT!!! But, he didn't survive either, just another mediocre combat pilot I guess.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Luke could have survived had he surrendered when called upon to do so. He chose not to. Now you're going to use that decision against him and call into question his flying skill. One has nothing to do with the other.

VBR to all

Al Lowe
"One the edge of destiny, you must test your strength"
- Billy Bishop

M Wendel wrote: " cam old boy, you're beginning to sound like a broken record. You used the same line in a Rickenbacker thread several months ago. But hang onto it, it could be useful in a thread about Laddie Roy. ;0)"

I did???? I dont remember it. You have me confused with someone else.

I am serious though Lukes legend fits the psyche of young men around the globe in the 90's. He was flagrantly anti authoritarian , died in battle being defiant to the end. It is the stuff 90's legends are written off. Fonck on the other hand isnt palatable to a 90's audience. He is arrogant , presumptuous and more fitting to the 19thC style of celebrity.

Instead of asking why is Luke a hero, we should really be asking why do we want to make Luke a Hero. What does Luke being a hero to us do for us personally. It is obvious from this forum that a lot of people who post here find that Lukes heroic style fills a need in their life and beliefs.

Personnally i dont find Luke that appealing i think he is overrated and wouldnt have his place on the world stage unless he was american. I have other heros from that period ( such as Phillipps , King and the Brisfit Jockeys from Palestine ), but then i have to ask myself why do i see those flyers as heroes or people deserving my adulation. What aspect of my nature makes their stories and often sacrifice appeal to my psyche and what need do they fill in my belief system.

cam

Graham;
I'am not disappointed, I don't care for Billy the Kid, or James Dean. The only Fonck was better at was lying. The man would come back having fired 6 shots and claim 2 victories, come on! The Allies got breaks after being in combat so long. The Germans fought until they were killed or wounded. Manfred was kill while still suffering the affects of his head wound, with a good shot of combat fatigue thrown in. Boelcke was killed on a very gusty day in a air accident that could have happened to anyone. You can't judge the skill of a pilot by his survival.
Jeni