Three controversial events in frank Luke's combat days

[mike_baram]

Richard,
More than likely thirst would be a combination of the two, in addition to loss of fluids from perspiration....adrenalin does some interesting things. Also, if Luke's wound were serious enough, he probably didn't have the strength to concentrate and aim a pistol accurately enough to hit anyone more than a few feet away.
Mike

(1) Based upon the strength of his official combat report for 16 AUG 1918, Major Hartney gave him credit for the victory. Also, this victory was listed on the old War Department records in Luke's file.
(2) According to the witness' statments in the affidavit and in German combat reports, Luke landed, walked about 50 yards towards the stream and then noticed the German troops approaching. He managed back to his plane(for cover supposedly) and drew his Colt 1911-model,.45 semi-automatic. Some of the troops had approached to within a few yards by this time, expecting the obviously wounded pilot to naturally surrender, they were surprised by a volley of fire in protest to their careless assumption. German reports detailed 9 KIAs amongst their forces in Murvaux on 29 SEP 1918. It was ascertained that after the 6 strafed dead in the street as affirmed in the affidavit, that left 3 to be accounted for in a "related action". Thus, we can rightfully believe that Luke capped off 3 Germans in his final stand.
(3) Joe Wehner was jumped by several Fokkers when he had placed himself between Luke and his unseen attackers in an act of courageous defense. Luke busted the balloon and then turned to help his friend who he noticed was in trouble. However, he was distracted by 2 Fokkers shooting up his tail from behind. He turned and dispatched these planes but when he once again headed in Joe's direction he was no where to be seen. The Cigognes, French "stork" pilots & friends of Luke, later reported to Luke's 'drome that they saw Joe's plane going down, pursued by relentless DR1 pilots to the ground.
This comes from a variety of highly reliable(well paid) sources.

[stephen]

"German reports detailed 9 KIA's..." May I ask what reports, what their source is, and any other known details of those reports? I am not doubting your statistics; rather, I am very curious about the new information. I was unaware of any German records regarding the event.

Stephen and all:
The American Aviation Historical Society journal of Fall, 1972 hasa detailed article by Royal Frey, a USAF Lt. Colonel and interviewed the two remaining live witnesses who had signed the 1918 document. They attested that they saw Luke land, crawl toward the stream, draw his weapon, fire one round, and fall dead. The Germans never saw him until after he had died. He may have fired to draw attention tohimself, to get help, because he was dying and knew it. Colonel Frey also interviewed a doctor who had evidence indicating Luke's wound was a bullet from below which pierced his lungs, causing a painful death like drowning in his own blood.
Frank Luke is my hero--I think he's the greatest fighter of WW1 in the air, probably one of the bravest men ever. I also think he was mortally wounded, landed his plane to get a drink of water, fired a round from the .45 to try to get attention and help, and died.
The AAHS journal also has some good info on Lufbery.
Best regards,
John

[stephen]

That would seem a far more plausible scenario, John, but it also seems to totally contradict the accounts of the 11 other witnesses. We still have a mystery, and I still have a problem with completely discarding the written testimonies as they were originally submitted. If someone has access to the original letter from Murveaux residents, could you please post it here for us all to read indepth and compare the two statements?

[Reinout]

Dear all,

It seems that the controversy hasn't ended. Eye-witnesses state that he took out a few, they also state that he died after a single shot, which didn't cause casualties.
Mutley: the sources you referred to, tell us the works about them! They might be useful considering the reactions on this thread.
One of the most important of my questions remains unanswered. Mutley stated that Major Hartney confirmed the victory, but the question was: was pressure applied to have it confirmed? I don't recall any evidence being forwarded, so how come it was confirmed?
Stephen Skinner raises a valid point, about Luke's strict combat records, however it is not evidence. What you're basically saying is that since he didn't lie about the other victories, we should give him this one too. No reason to question his honesty. Good point but consider this: Fonck was believed to tell the truth about 75 victories, then why not give him the other 50 as well, he hasn't lied about the others? Consider Jacobs, MvR and Mannock. They didn't lie about victories, why not give them the God knows how many victories or so they didn't get confirmed?
The point of this all is that evidence is needed for a confirmation, not character. It has not been satisfactorily proven that he scored a DVII, let alone actually fought one, so why did he get credit? I am sticking by the version I first read (according to the evidence and your comments I feel that is the best version),i.e. he made the victory up, until evidence can be found in (German) records.

I am going to Paris on Monday, meaning that I won't be able to use the computer for about nine days. Keep posting though! I SHALL read and comment your replies after I get back.

Stephen Skinner: I shall beat you to France! But your stay there will be quite a bit longer. Many thanks to the persons who have helped me with Le Bourget! Especially Richard Sshrader.
Oh, and Stephen, remember that beer in Paris is extremely expensive: about $3 or more! Sometimes they have student parties which cost $17 entry or more and you still have to pay for all your drinks except one which you get for free).

Have a nice Autumn-holiday folks!

Kind regards,

Reinout

[stephen]

For clarification, Reinout, a reprint of my previous post: "Believing his initial claim is a sensible and logical extension of the available evidence."

"Believing" is the operative word here. In retrospect, the only logical conclusion is that this victory DID actually occur based on his subsequent record of verifiable claims, although it would rightfully remain unconfirmed if it did not meet contemporary confirmation rules. I am not suggesting that it should be officially confirmed because he was a nice, honest kid.

Knock yourself out in Paris; sorry we'll miss each other.

[Barrett]

Ballonatics:

I'll take a whack at the tactical folly Luke and his two short-lived wingmen committed, which ended so tragically for all concerned. Tackling one balloon--let alone multiples as was Luke's habit--with two fighters was Just Plain Dumb. That was a job for a six-plane flight, not a lone pair, given (a) the multiple enemy fighters usually on patrol and (B) the heavy AA defenses. Now, it may be that nobody else wanted to fly with Luke, but both the CO (Grant) and group CO (Hartney) had the authority to order a co-ordinated attack on a German balloon line with one designated shooter for each Drachen and a high CAP or TarCAP to intercept the Fokkers. That Luke got away with these tactics for almost a month speaks volumes for his courage, ability, and luck, but that's about it. The other high-scoring balloon assassins (Coppens, Roth, Boyau, etc) apparently worked in teams with carefully-laid plans--sometimes even rehearsed plans.
Of course even the best-laid plans....4th FG ace Jim Goodson (aka "King of the Strafers") told me years ago that he was shot down and captured on the only strafing mission he ever planned.

All you Lukeophiles
I hope we are not going to be exposed to more outrageous balderdash and wild stories about my hero Frank Luke. Barrett's description of him is pretty good. I think he was the best ace of WW1, did a phenomenal job in a couple of weeks, died heroically, was a gutsy kid.
BUT he was just one year out of high school--graduated June of '17--played a lot of sports, but the Arizona Republican, the Phoenix paper of that time, followed his sports career and it is obvious that he was stubborn and bullheaded even in school. He was captain and star player but the coach bounced him off the football team for not following instructions. The rest of the team each got a little gold football on a watch fob, but not Frank.
The story of him saving his pal from the raging flood in the Gila or Salt river also demands more research.
His death is also crying for honest research.
John

Dear Reinout,

I've been watching you from heaven for quite some time now, and I must say: keep up the good work, my friend.
On a more personal note: Ich habe es nicht gewusst.....

Kind regards,

Oswald Boelcke