Not such a stupid Q (esp after watching the debate)

Can someone explain an apparent problem observed with respect to Bishop's claims? On the one hand, 'Above the Trenches' corrects Bishop's 72 victory's down to 55.0 destroyed. On the other hand, several contributors here at the forum cite the "fact" that serious researchers (whom I assume must include the GOGS) report that very few, if any, of Bishop's claims can be verified in the German records.

IF in fact the Grub Street authors are among those who concede that few of Bishop's claims can be verified by his enemy, how can the same authors arrive at a number of 55.0 destroyed credits? On what evidence is the reported value of 55.0 value based? I find it difficult to believe that such a figure would be listed without some sort of supporting evidence, unless this is the actual number of planes Bishop reported to have crashed.?

Well, last time I checked, The British also kept records. It would seem that if the BRITISH saw the plane go down and reported it and that the plane was indeed credited to Bishop then he would have a victory.

Also if Bishop reported shooting down a plane on a certain date, and there is a record of a plane going down on that date, and where Bishop claimed to shoot it down, then I guess we could give him that one as well, even if that record isn't an "official German record" (read personal diary, obituary, civilian report, etc...)

Now I won't call it stupid, but I will say it is irresponsible when a person tries to verify a historical event only relying on one source of information. This is the worst kind of revisionist nonsense.

How'd I do Al?

Tobias

[Craig]

. . . and if the Official Record itself is based upon one source, what then?

[Ginger.]

Mark
You will see now how the great dogfights developed.Soon the Hawks will be leading their flights down at all angles.
Keep right behind me and turn when I do,with a bit of luck,while they are riddling you,I can pot one and dive for the lines.
Happy Landings,
Ginger.

[rammjaeger]

Mark,

did you really read ATT? The authors say very clear he got 55 victories of the victory category "destroyed" and and rest of his 72 were victories of the category "OOC". We donīt blame Bishop for his OOCs, other pilots had many more and OOC means also the airplane was not seen to crash. But in 55 cases he was reporting "destroyed"-victories (often without any whitnesses!) - that means burning or crashing German airplanes. It is impossible to verify a reasonable convincing share of this "victories" with German sources. And the sources of the German Armys in Bishops battle zones (esp 6.AOK) are sufficient for this purpose - different to other claims of Bishop-believers.

Mark

This one will never work itself out, as there is not enough evidence to support either side so it goes round and round then gets personal!

Mark

Mark

Hannes, no I have never read ATT, only that small table in it that is referenced at this site. Perhaps this fact accounts for some of my ignorance with regard to the question asked.

[Billy_Bishop]

First, ATT didn't "correct" Billy's score down to 55 from 72. They simply told us what categories all his claims fit into. (This has actually been done before, though not as accurately, by Dan McCaffrey)

The article you're referring to here was authored by Barrett Tillman. He prefers to gage everything by WWII/Post WWII standards. That's fine by me, but Bishop's OFFICIAL RFCRAF score still stands at 72 victories. I doubt you'll ever get the RAF, or the CAF to downgrade his score.

Second, as much as everyone likes to tout the German records, they are not the end all of the story. Considering how different things are recorded, who knows what happened? The biggest problem, as I see it is that the majority of the ORIGINAL Jasta war diaries are missing. Doubtless they held more details, and while many of them were copied, there's a good chance that they were not all copied in their entirity. It's already been shown that Tornauss (Spelling?) left out things such as serial numbers of aircraft, first names of pilots and other things.

Suffice it to say, I think this is one controversy that will never die, much as many of us would like to see it go away.

Of course, now I'm going to get jumped on by those who think the German records are infallible.

Oh well.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Ginger.]

Don't worry Al I'll cover you till Hell freezes over,or you say different!!!

Sadly and for whatever reason, Bishop's claims were confirmed "Carte Blanche" no matter how unlikely the circumstances. (See Mannock's Score thread and read Al's contribution for Spencer Horn's account) On a day where operations were almost impossible because of low cloud cover and generally poor weather, Bishop was able to break through and find four Huns- two of which immediately collided under Bishop's attack and two two which he immediately shot down. all tis despite the fact Bishop's four other squadron mates never saw a thing!

Not suprisingly, there are no corresponding German casualties for the day, time or area.

How powerful was Bishop? Horn and his mates feared a later reprimand for not enjoying the same succes as Bishop.

Luck of the war I imagine - yeah right!



Holck