Frank Luke flies!

oops, sorry.

I guess Gandert would be out of the question too..
That is, if by 'Balloon attack' the war chronology is referring to Gandert himself attacking a balloon.

Ooops! My mistake. Hoffman was serving with Jasta 2 (Boelcke), not Kek B.

[Barrett]

In Sept '18 Jasta B was at Emerchecourt; don't have info here on the other units for that period. I don't know where Emerchecourt is in relation to Murvaux.

[Reinout]

Dear Mutley,

I would really appreciate it if at least some of the controversy surrounding victory #1 is included in the movie - doesn't matter in which way. I hope it comes through, you never know with the moneymakers of Hollywood. Personally I would show the mission in bad weather, and Luke claiming a kill, without showing the dogfight. Has anybody checked German records for that day? Maybe they didn't fly at all. if the weather was so awful and they were on fuel rations, would you squander it on such a sortie? Of course this needs some further investigation.

Kind regards,

Reinout

[stephen]

Hey! I take exception to that! Let's face it... judging (AFTER the fact) by Luke's character and military record, does anyone seriously doubt that this kill actually took place? Based on what we NOW know about Luke, it's absurd to think it didn't. The movie should indeed show the kill taking place, but also show that there wasn't sufficient evidence to confirm it. Omitting the kill altogether is not consistent with the factual historical record that we have of Luke's career, and is dangerously close to smearing an otherwise unblemished record without any contrary evidence. Sound a little like Paul Cowan's work?

[Reinout]

We'll never see the end of this one Stephen....

You have stated the character argument before and although I agree it supports the suggestion that the dogfight took place, it is not actual evidence. Major Hartney said that he could never get it confirmed, even though HE believed it to have happened. The original account of Frank Luke's career that I read some 7 years ago (I've tried to find it - no success) stated that Luke was becoming more frustrated with himself for not being succesful while his unit-mates seemed to dislike him more and more because of disciplinary problems (I know now that it was because he ran out on them during flights a couple of times). He needed something to redeem himself: a victory. In weather too awful to fly -probably the most abominable visibility- he shot down a DVII off the tail of a mate. I find it hard to believe that the Germans would risk a machine and precious fuel for a flight that would in all probability have to come back empty-handed. I think the movie shouldn't display the kill because of the lack of evidence. I don't mean just the lack of evidence for confirmation, but also the lack of evidence that a dogfight actually took place. A judgment based afterwards on his character would definitely be in favour of the kill. But if it couldn't be proven then, why should we believe it now? Character can never be a substitute for proof. Example: Georg-Peter Eder was an accomplished and chivalrous pilot. Bomber crews knew the number of his aircraft and they prayed that if they were going to be shot down that day, it was by the plane that carried that number, for the chance of survival was a lot higher. He has a total of 78 confirmed victories. Of these 12 were scored flying an Me262. As a jetpilot he claimed 36 destroyed. Due to obvious reasons that have been discussed several months ago, these 24 weren't confirmed. This was a noble warrior and he received a shameful treatment of the Allies. But let us not concern with the torture he was put through. Based on his character, there is no doubt in my mind that he shot down 36 aircraft with a jet. But I cannot go around telling everybody that he did in 36! I can only tell them that he shot down 12 and may have gotten another 24 for which no confirmation was possible. And of those 24 one may find after close scrutiny of the records (if they are available) that some of the aerial combats cannot be verified to have taken place. I must add one nuance here of course. Eder flew in an airspace where it was more difficult not to find any opponents (from the German point of view) than to find them. Lukes alleged first kill took place during bad weather at a time when Germany's air units were on a strict fuel-ration. Do Norman, Franks etc. have nothing on the subject? Can one not ascertain which Jasta the Fokker must have come from. For if there were any sorties that day, they are sure to have been far and few between. Even if a combat did occur, was the Fokker destroyed? Then a loss record may still exist.

I just heard that within five minutes we'll all be kicked out of this room so I'll have to leave it at this - though in my heart and mind I know that we haven't reached the conclusion of the on-going Frank Luke saga.

Kind regards,

Reinout

Reinout,

I would like to address one point you made in your comments. Is there actually no evidence or testimony that a dogfight ever took place on the misson in question ?
I somehow doubt that Hartney would try to get confirmation for Lukes victory if he had been in the air with him at that time and saw no combat take place at all on the mission. That, of course, is just conjecture on my part, but would it not be solid evidence that at least a dogfight took place if Hartney, who was in the air with Luke at the time, said it did?

I seem to recall that Hartney stated that combat took place on that mission but I am not certain, perhaps Stephen or Mutley can shed some light on that issue. Still doesn't prove he shot anything down, I know.

I think Eder deserves hero status in anyones book from what you have told us. His actions remind me of Wittgenstein, another ace who never lost his human compassion.

Regards

MDD

[Shooter]

I agree with the premise that one must begin with the integrity of the MAN. Frank Luke was a man of honor, as near as I can figure it. He was willing to prove with his own courage and honor that what he said was true. Simple fact is, that most of his peers were Easterners. Some were Europeans. All believed that a man's word was subject to question and revue. Luke, a product of his times and his roots, said that a man WAS his word.

For those of you who require more proof, no proof will ever suffice. For those of us who do not, no proof was ever required. I am happy to agree that he shot down 18, 19, 21, 11, or any number of German aircraft. What I WILL NOT suffer is any disrespect upon Frank's name.

Frank Luke faced all that the Central Powers could array against him, and if he did not beat them down to "parade rest" it was not for lack of effort.

And he did oppose them, with .45 drawn, and died an absolute hero. (I think he fought a Wild West shoot-out and dropped a few in the process, but you are free to believe what you will!)

All else is umimportant rhetoric.

DVC

Bill

[stephen]

There is no proof for the first kill. There is no proof against the first kill. That leaves us with the remainder of his career as a barometer for our judgement.

I believe Frank Luke's claims of his first kill for the same reason that I believe Manfred von Richthofen's testimony about his first kill. When no other evidence is available pro or con, you must accept the character evidence of the man himself. This is not hero worship; it is drawing a conclusion from the only available source. And in this case, there is no other rational conclusion to draw.

The defense rests.

[Reinout]

Hi there Shooter,

The thing that led me to believe that Hartney never actually witnessed the fight, was a posting by if I recall correctly, Scott Campbell. But I am not sure though. Anyway, he posted an extract from Hartney's book on the incident. It told me four things:
1) It reinforced my view that luke was desperately on the lookout for redemption.
2) That Hartney never himself saw the enemy during that flight, but was convinced by Luke's statement that it had occurred - not based on any evidence but on his saying so.
3) That Hartney did his utmost to get it confirmed but did not succeed due to the fact that no evidence could be found.
4) The above conclusions would give credence to the view that if the kill was ever confirmed it was done without evidence, afterwards. Probably under pressure from some brass, who wanted an American homeboy have all he could give him.

I do not doubt Lukes character or courage. He did a difficult job many times in a short period, and praise befall him, as he deserves it! But as a (someday I hope) historian I am obliged to ask critical questions where there is controversy left. Especially if a movie is about to be filmed that may show these controversial events as facts.

You can ask any historian (a true one, who has had all the training in the scientific approach of history - no disrespect intended towards the Forum-visitors) that evidence is needed if you're going to make some statements or something like that. Character is not evidence, it is speculation. Sometimes we have nothing else and in such a case all the possibilities are discussed and everyone can select the view he thinks holds true the most. But such things remain in the hypothetical world. A good historian will always point out the difference between speculation and evidence-based facts. If any of my teachers here knew anything about WWI aviation and Frank Luke, I'd have dragged him up here long ago!

As I am sure that we all have presented our exhibits, the prosecution rests (though I prefer not to be called "prosecutor").
I just hope Mutley takes my plea to heart as well as to his chiefs, and put the 1st kill controversy in his movie.
I also hope that a German company makes a movie about Oswald Boelcke. If you have seen the German movie "Stalingrad" then you will understand why I hope it is a German company who will perform the honors.

Kind regards,

Reinout