Three controversial events in frank Luke's combat days

[Reinout]

Dear all,

This Frank Luke movie has sparked up some renewed interest in the man and I have three questions. The movie -for those who have read the "remember Frank Luke?" thread- will take a certain stance when it comes to three controversial events of Luke's combat life. I have three questions pertaining to these controversial events.

1) His first victory. The only time I read about Frank Luke in detail was about seven years ago, when I was as green as grass on WWI/WWII aviation. At that time I read that he went on a solo patrol after which he claimed to have shot down a German plane (a fighter I believe). He had no witnesses and no plane was seen to crash. His superiors didn't believe him and refused to award him a victory. In the next two-and-a-half weeks Luke began to amass a fine score. His popularity as well as his fame increased and pressure was applied from I can't remember where exactly, resulting in the confirmation of Luke's claim. I know the claim has always been controversial; most sources I came in contact with finished the matter by calling him a liar. I wouldn't call him a structural liar of any sorts, but I have strong doubts that his first victory ever took place like he said it did.
My questions: what is the deal on this victory? Am I right or did he shoot down a German plane? What are your views (I can guess the views of some of you)? Are there any reliable sources?

2) Another event is his final flight. After he crashed he was asked to surrender by a German officer... Then what? Did he shoot soldiers down? There are several accounts of his death. Gunned down after shooting two Germans, sometimes it is three Germans. Another account has him crawling to a small stream. The same questions of above apply here: are there any sources and what do you lot believe?

3) Joseph Wehners death. I would like to know under what circumstances Wehner was killed. I know that he flew cover for Luke and was attacked by 4 (?) aircraft; the Germans eventually shot him down. Did Luke notice anything about this dogfight or did he only saw the big gasbags? Any witnesses?

These questions are important because hard things have been said and I feel history is at stake.
Please, don't disappoint me; haven't had that many since I came to this Forum...

Kind regards,

Reinout

I have details about Wehner lying around here somewhere, if they weren't lost in my recent move..My understanding of question #3 is, that Luke and Wehner got seperated from each other, losing visual contact. Luke didn't see what happened to Wehner, or he would not, upon returning to his aerodrome, have asked if Wehner had yet returned.


Melinda

I'll take a stab at the first one on your list. Until his actions proved otherwise, Luke's self-confidence caused most of his peers to consider him a boastful liar. As the weeks went by, that attitude began to change. Might be easiest to quote "Up and at 'Em," by Harold Hartney:

Several days latter, August 16, 1918, to be exact, I had my first real feel of Frank Luke's dependability in the air. Our advance airdrome at Coincy was ready for us, camouflaged gas trucks and everything, and we got orders to use that as the starting point for a protection patrol. We were having great trouble with the new Spads and the boys of the 27th and 147th had no confidence in them. A poorly housed reduction gear which would get out of line with the slightest nick in the propeller was constantly causing us mechanical difficulties. It would vibrate and soon the various pieces of plumbing would start to ease loose and the engine would begin to miss or quit completely.

At 5:05 p.m. I led a gang of 12 of our planes and three from the 94th out at 9000 feet to protect one of Ken Littauer's photographic Salmsons from the 88th Squadron. We soared up in perfect formation. From Fere-en-Tardenois to Fismes, however, our boys began dropping out with engine trouble. Finally there was only one plane left besides mine. By now we were at 18,000 feet and already had had several minor brushes with the enemy.

It was one of those grim, heat-hazy days when it was particularly difficult to spot enemy ships. The first intimation of their presence would be the streaks of tracer bullets and that nasty click-click as hostile missiles snapped menacingly past your ears. Only this one plane stuck by me. Things got too hot for me and I "piqued" for our Coincy field. As I pulled in, there were thirteen of our ships sitting on the ground. When I had taxied to a stop a lot of the pilots came running over to tell me they thought I had been lost and to utter loud and violent blasphemies concerning the Spads and the French "who had wished those crocks on us." I am told that no man ever cursed as loud and vehemently as I did at that moment.

I was still ranting and giving everyone hell when a lone Spad came in with the pilot goosing the engine and causing a terrific racket.

"Here comes your boy friend now," said one man from the 27th. "He said he was going to get his first Boche today or never come back. Let's see what the blow-hard's got to say for himself. Bet he claims one."

Some of the others beat me getting over to find out what had happened to Luke. One came running back to me.

"What did I tell you? He says he shot one off your tail."

I took Frank by the arm and walked him away from the others. From what he told me, the way he described it and from the fact that I was there, I believed then, and always will believe, that he did shoot a German plane off my tail. However, although I used every resource I could muster, both before and after the Armistice, in trying to get him a confirmation, that victory is unconfirmed to this day.

According to Harold Hartney's autobiography, on 18 September 1918, after Wehner and Luke flamed their second balloon, six Fokkers dived on Luke. Wehner saw them first and fired a Very pistol to warn Luke but apparantly Luke didn't see it. As Wehner intercepted the six Fokkers, a seventh Fokker came from above and shot him down. Luke proceeded to down two of the Fokkers, but broke off when he ran low on fuel. Returning to the aerodrome, he spotted friendly archie fire indicating enemy planes in the area. Luke arrived on the scene and found three French planes maneuvering for position with two German planes. Streaking past the French, he shot down one of the German planes. Totals: 3 planes for Luke and 2 balloons shared with Wehner.

[stephen]

I'll only tackle question number two; what happened when Luke went down at Murveaux?

Several contemporary historians have tried to discount the story of Luke's alleged shootout with German soldiers in a farmer's field outside of Murveaux, but none have done so with any reliable evidence. Case in point, the Above the Lines/Over the Front/etc. series, which summarily dismisses the shootout without so much as a consideration. They offer no explanation whatsoever, other than saying that Luke's career needs no such embellishment. Admittedly, the story sounds far fetched and is certainly suspicious, but in order to discount a written, signed statement by a number of actual eyewitnesses, including the town mayor (whom one would expect to have some marginal amount of credibility among his people), you must present some sort of evidence to back your argument. I have seen none. Therefore, to my mind, the story stands as it was witnessed and reported by the people on the scene, regardless of how outrageous it sounds. Until something else comes to light, that's the only rational way for an historian to look at it.

As many of you know, I've been to Murveaux and will return in about 13 days (YAHOOOOOO!!!). I've seen the exact spot of Luke's demise, and the shootout story is plausible IF you discount the imaginative theory of his ending up in the graveyard, which is at least 500-700 yards from the landing site and clearly had nothing to do with the alleged shootout. Otherwise, Luke's supposed strafing run on the troops in Murveaux lines up perfectly with his landing site. I.e., the main road in Murveaux on which troops were reported to be standing makes a perfectly aligned target from the direction of Luke's approach, and a wounded man who wanted an immediate landing would have landed in the open field, directly beyond the main road which is indeed alongside a VERY small stream. Luke's plane would have touched down less than 10 or 15 seconds after his strafing run. He could have been out of the cockpit and at the stream less than 30 seconds later. Give him 30 seconds on the scene... enough to realize the gravity of his wound, make his decision and get his weapon, and you have just enough time for German soldiers to arrive on the scene. I do sincerely doubt that Luke was able to take any of them out, since they had a clear shot at him with their rifles which had a much greater range; therefore it's logical to assume that they opened fire on Luke as soon as they realized his intent to defend himself. So logistically and geographically speaking, the shootout story can't be disproved, and historically, we are still stuck with the signed statement of eyewitnesses whether we want to believe it or not. The only possible negative evidence may come from the USAF officer who visited this area and spoke with witnesses many years ago, and I have no knowledge of what his research found.

Sorry for such a long entry, but I felt I had something to offer on this particular question.

About after Luke landed. Quentin Reynolds' They Fought for the Sky quotes a sworn document by the Mayor of Murvaux and thirteen townsmen.


"The undersigned, living in Murvaux... certify to have seen on 19th September 1918 towards evening an American aviator followed by an escadrille of Germans in the direction of Liny... (this describes the action with the balloons)... From there he came back over Murvaux and still with his guns he killed six German soldiers and wounded as many more. Following this he landed and got out of his machine, undoubtedly to quench his thirst at the stream (they say he was apparently wounded) He had gone fifty yards when, seeing the Germans come towards him, he still had the strength to draw his revolver to defend himself. A moment after he fell dead following a serious wound he received in the chest. The undersigned themselves placed the body of the aviator on the wagon and conducted it to the cemetery."


I dont understand the bit about wanting a drink, I suspect he had damage or a bad wound but they werent to know that.

I dont know how reliable this source is, I guess no one can ever really know, but apart from the German soldiers, they are probably the only eyewitnesses so I'm inclined to believe them.

They don't say anything about any Germans killed in the firefight so maybe that info came from a German report. But anyway there's my answer - although there can be confusing elements, in my opinion you can't get much more reliable than eyewitness accounts, and in those days, a man's word meant a lot more than it does today. So I believe in their honesty with regard to the facts, even if I wonder at the accuracy of their interpretation. Maybe someone else can spread more light on the subject, I'm not claiming I know that much about it.

[Reinout]

Dear all,

The most detailed entries were about the alleged shootout. If thirteen eye-witnesses claim to have seen Luke trying to defend himself, than I believe he did attempt to shoot at German soldiers. However, the eye-witnesses make no claims as to the number of German soldiers killed in this shootout, and as one of you pointed out, the German rifles outranged the American handgun. Are there any German records on this? One would think that an action involving the death of six soldiers and perhaps more, as well as several wounded, would result in a lengthy report. It is of course highly probable that in the closing weeks of the war, the report never materialised. Even if it did, there's no certainty that it escaped destruction in WWII. I wonder if there has been an historian/amateur who has tried to find official German sources on this action.

I have never come across anything remotely official on the shootout. This Luke movie -which I am looking forward too- is ready to depict a shootout where three German soldiers are killed by Luke. If eye-witnesses do not say anything about German casualties during this fight, than why will the movie portray the deaths of three Germans? I have a strong feeling that Luke's heroism will be upgraded at the cost of history. If a movie claims to be historically accurate than shouldn't they go with the evidence? As long as no evidence comes up I for one refuse to believe that Luke gunned anyone down (though I'd sway when confronted by evidence naturally).

There's also the first victory. If no official evidence could be found that Luke downed a DVII -let alone actually engaging one- from Allied and German sources, than why will the movie show a dogfight? Wouldn't it be better if the movie portrayed the mission (without the dogfight) and Luke claiming a kill, but also stating that no official confirmation could be granted? I am convinced the fight didn't occur. One of my questions wasn't answered yet: was pressure applied to the officials to have the claim certified when Luke started to gain a reputation? If so than shouldn't that be included in the movie as well?

I have to ask these questions even though I know some of you don't like it. It makes me look like I am trying to do the one thing that I hate the most: detract from an ace's reputation in favour of others (German pilots and soldiers in this case). Well I am not. I admire Luke's courage, determination and rashness, though I do not always agree with some of his actions. As a historian in training I am taught to ask critical questions and frankly, that's exactly what I am doing here. It is just that I have seen too many movies claiming to be historical which in fact they are not, and only serve to enhance a persons/nations fame, reputation or status.

Stephen: do keep writing your long replies (I shall do so too), it's good reading.

Kind regards,

Reinout

[stephen]

I am unaware of any German records which would specifically state the means by which six of their soldiers were killed; medical records and loss records would only show the magnitude of the wound. Perhaps someone else can help us here. It is, however, unlikely that German records were ever kept, much less survived, from an action barely six weeks prior to the Armistice. And those soldiers were killed by Luke from the air, not in the alleged ground shootout. If the movie shows him killing Germans in the shootout, it is in my opinion giving him a wide berth for heroism. It's possible but unlikely.

Re: his first victory... had Luke's record continued to be of questionable integrity then there would be cause to doubt his claim, but this is not the case. Considering the remarkable veracity of his combat claims over the following 4 weeks, it is illogical to believe that Luke was lying. Again, when no other evidence is available, you must decide on what has been presented to date. What has been presented to date is the meticulously accurate combat record of a successful pilot who did not claim what he did not shoot down. Believing his initial claim is a sensible and logical extension of the available evidence.

I think the only way that it was possible that Luke felled any Germans is if he drew his revolver after they had already approached him. They may have asked him to surrender but either he didn't understand that simple german phrase or he decided "death before dishonor", drew his pistol and started to blast the surprised germans. If Luke killed any Germans I'm sure it was at close range.

[Richard_Schrader]

Simon;
It's normal for a wounded person to get unnaturely thirsty when wounded. I can't remember if the reason is shock or loss of blood.
Richard