The Shootout

[Vin]

Who cares about Geneva, Hague, incendiaries or court martials. Let us get back to the only thing that is of interest in this whole Luke (who ?) nonsense. “The Shootout at Murvaux Creek (or was it in the farmyard ?)”.

Stephen swears black and blue it happened, Barrett says that there is no doubt it happened, Billy H says it didn’t.

Here is your opportunity, boys. Lay your cards on the table. Oh, do not bother with the dodgy statement prepared by someone unknown and signed by a mob of Murvaux villagers reproduced at this site.


Vin

Il mio fratello: Vin: THere are two scenarios: 1) Luke had a shootout with a .45 automatic (effective range about 50 yards, max) vs German infantry armed with Mauser 98s (effective range 300 yards); or 2) Luke tried to shoot it out but died before he could get a round off, from loss of blood from a 37mm round that hit him on the right upper rib cage, and traversed diagonally to come out under his left shoulder blade (clavicle).
I never made a statement about this, but I did put the two affidavits frrom the townspeople who were there. The 1919 affidavit and the 1962 affidavit were signed by the same people. This last was taken by a person named Royal Frey, now deceased, and formerly a fighter pilot (WWII) who was stationed at the American fighter base at Etain (about 5 miles from the Verdun field that FL lofted himself toward Murvaux. Frey visited the sites of all our bases on the Western front and charted their location by latitude and longitude. After he retired, he became a curator at Wright-Patterson; after he died they placed his name on a marble bench near the entrance grounds. He wrote an article (1970 AAHS) about Luke that challenged, not Luke, but those writers who claimed he had a shootou, which is to say a mutual exchange of gunfire. In the 1962 statement, the Germans came at Luke from two directions, reached the plane, which was 75 meters from the creek, saw the trail of blood leading to the creek, from which Luke fired; then fell dead. THe signatories said that the Gs wanted to take Luke alive; that they did not shoot him but that he was dead when they approached the creek. They also said that Luke did not strafe the town. Whether, he did those two things, strafe the town and have a shootout, or not-Does that diminish him in your eyes? Figlio mio, you've got to realize that those two events were not reported by Luke. If Barrett and Steve have reports that contradict the affidavit, I haven't seen them, but I have an open mind on this, because it doesn't really matter, because he gave it all.
In my mind, I don't see anyone finding fault with the underachievers in the 1st Pursuit, or 'pilots' like Lt Prince who firred aot the shadow his plane cast on a cloud, and who was so good at aircraft recognition, he almost shot Rickenbacker down, and who crashed on landing and destroyed an aircraft a more competent pilot could have used to advantage. Capisce, Vin? Regards, Billy H.11/12/99.

[Billy_Bishop]

Too bad John Wayne is dead, he'd have made a GREAT Frank Luke.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Vin]

Billy H

You are correct. You did not make a statement about this. In your post of 9 November, you reported that the townspeople of Murvaux "who saw his death wound said it was 37 mm fired by a 'revolver gun' on the Cote St Germain as Luke passed it. Hit, he immediately set the 26 plane down, crawled to the Milly creek, and concealed himself in the weeds. Witnesses said that he tried to fire his handgun, but collapsed on the approach of German infantry; they also stated that the Gs did not fire at Luke: he was DOA."

Whether or not Luke had the shootout only matters to the extent that some forumites have used the event as justification for claims of Luke's extraordinary courage. Now if the shootout did not occur… Whether he strafed the town or not also does not matter except that some forumites have used the event as justification for claims of Luke's extraordinary bravado. Now if the strafing did not take place…

Generally I find the attitudes towards Luke expressed in this forum by some to be completely over the top and not sustained by the facts. It is an interesting story. You wrote a book about it all so you must have found it interesting too.

Thank you for your informative and courteous reply.


Vin

Al

That is just about right, too.

[stephen]

Luke fired multiple shots at German soldiers with the intent of hitting them.

That is the only statement I have made that I puported to be fact, and everyone on this forum has heard me back it up with the limited available evidence, and there is no - that is, no - evidence to the contrary. I have also explicitly stated on gobs of occasions that there are a number of speculative scenarios that fit the facts as we know them. You have apparently not thoroughly read what I and others have posted before. I am leaving for Japan next week and when I return, I will consider making one last effort at putting forth what is known, what is not known, and what possible scenarios might have occured. In the meantime, please refrain from telling those of us who are genuinely seeking the facts what legend-lovers we are.

Vin,
I read your posts yesterday and was too infuriated to reply then, now that I've calmed down I'll reply. If F. Luke even drew his gun out , whether he got off a shot or not, it was for the intent of defending himself, it wasn't for show. HE WOULD'VE USED IT! The strafing? Who knows? But so far it's on written record (i.e. his CMH writeup). If you wish to call me a Luke groupie, I'm proud to be one. Guy had more cojones than you or I will ever possess! I tend to find it amazing how the great (yes I said GREAT) warriors are always subject to getting beat up by people, maybe because they weren't so smooth and polished (like MvR), or maybe some people think that they just don't fit the mold of a hero. Funny thing is that here in America history most people who are heroes always seem to be the ones who are rough around the edges. I seem to recall that Ned Kelly is a local Australian hero, but would it have served me any good stead to call him a common thief when I was in Australia? He's right there with Jesse James (folk heroes both) but common theives and murderers. Or would it have served me any better to question the actions/heroism of the men at Gallipoli? NO! Each pilot fought with courage, and whether they had all the advantages or went against the odds, to speak anything less of that courage is really in poor taste. Whether they shot down only 3 planes, or 80 planes to call them less than superb is pure crap. They took risks on a daily basis that you would probably hesitate at. Strap your butt in a SPAD XIII and put yourself under the same stresses and pressures that Luke endured (DAILY) and see how you perform. By the way VIN, where has your military service been at?
VBR,
Jim

[Vin]

Stephen

The reason I commenced this thread is to enable anyone to test their evidence against Billy H’s findings. The only evidence I have ever seen from you is the “Murvaux Affidavit” of which you know my views and which does not say that shots were fired anyway. Speculation is fine as long as it is acknowledged as speculation.

Jim

You should have waited until tomorrow ! The question of the courage of the individual pilots has not been raised. Of course a pilot would need courage to get into one of those primitive craft, climb thousands of feet off the ground and face machine gun bullets protected by canvas and without a parachute. Look at the facts and temper your views in accord with them as you did in your post on favourite planes @ 13.13 (forum time). Speculation is fine as long as it is acknowledged as speculation.


Vin

AL: Dead or alive, you couldn't get the Duke into the cockpit of a Spad 13.

[Vin]

Di Caprio ?

[Amy]

Vin:

There are different theories with different documentation. If the shoot out is pure "speculation" then so can be the Frey Report. Practice what you preach.

But the aforementioned is not at all the true reason you "commenced" this thread. What you really want is to make a non-shoot out fact, throw out anything else to the contrary, and defame Luke as much as possible. Why? Because you consider Luke over-rated, over-exposed, and you don't like him.

I can only imagine you gain some perverse satisfaction out of holding a grudge against a dead man.

Amy