Worst Ace.

[Billy_Bishop]

Hiya Shooter!

Just to clarify a bit. I know most, if not all of the pros and cons in the " Billy Bishop Controversy". While I admit he is not perfect, I have not yet seen any thing that proves he purposefully lied.

Now, I have been told by persons who shall remain nameless that some of his contemporaries who flew with him think he lied, or shall we say "inflated" his claims. AND we have the problem that few if any of his claims match up to German losses.

The problem I have with this, is that of his 72 confirmed claims (there is substantial evidence now that he put in over 100 claims, 72 of which were confirmed) he had witnesses for 20-26 of those that were confirmed.

And some of his witnesses, without naming names, were people who later said they thought Bishop was inflating his score!

I have tried, using the records supplied by Frank O., of Bishop's confirmed claims vs. German losses for the same period (mostly KIA pilots and crew) to match some of his claims. It's next to impossible, because the listed losses show WHERE the aircrew died. And this may not be the same place where they went down. Indeed, the day they died is not always the day they were shot down.

Unfortunately, since I'm still unemployed, I don't have the resources to get the proper records I need. What I REALLY need are copies of German records showing what, when and where aircraft went down. That is the ONLY way to truly match up losses to claims.

Trying to do so using casualty records leaves too many open holes.

If anything like that exists, THAT is what is needed to prove one way or the other what happened.

By the way, I've been told by various persons, that those records do not exist. At least that the originals don't. I hope they're wrong.

You see, while my HOPE is that if I can find such records, I can find/match a good portion of Bishop's claims to German losses. IF I should find otherwise, I would have to say at that point that Bishop did indeed lie, or at least it would strongly appear that he did so. At best I'd think we could say he "over estimated".

BUT, until that proof is found, <strike>I have to</strike>... I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Tell you what Ace, You go to war with as little training as most of those men had, and see if you come back. Even if the other guy doesn't have a weapon you could still die. The point I'm trying to make is, the only people who do not deserve the honor that comes with death are the ones that cause deaths because they were stupid. It doesn't matter if luck runs out, or you weren't as good as the other, it all depends on the situation.

Reloading and cocking my Vikkers for another pass.

[Shooter]

Go to the post "Just what is a hero?" and you will get MY answer, guys!

Shooter sends

Tell you what Hawk boy, I've served in many hazardous situations, and have been to war. I've had good training and bad training. Some times of close calls came by surviving by instinct and my own wits. By the way, I am still serving on active duty. Point being, it doesn't matter how good you think you may be, there is always someone who might be just a bit better. If your training is poor, you will fight like you train ... poorly. But in the defense of Entente pilots, they had to face pretty overwhelming odds quite frequently. Most battles being fought over enemy lines usually puts the enemy at an advantage from the start. Stupidity in combat usually gets you dead ... PERIOD! So does underestimation of your enemy, ignorance of his capabilities, and ignorance of his tactics. Do I disarage the courage of the men who flew, I think not! But in combat the lessons are hard and fast, you normally won't get a second chance to correct a dumb mistake as the odds against you mount at an incredible rate. Even if you are the best trained pilot in the world, if you become overconfident, you can easily make the fatal mistake and get yourself killed. To err is distinctly human, in war it's hazardous. So in essence you think that the pilot who died in combat "sword in hand" died a noble death. You are fooling yourself, because how many of those "noble deaths" can a country take before it has no more men to sacrifice!? The object of combat is to win ... PERIOD. Thereby you further your country's cause, and you prolong your own life. The object of any war is to win for your own country's continuation of it's way of life. Military warfare is only a tool of politics - Clausewitz. Deaths are not noble, but are a necessary by-product of war!
Regards,
Jim 'ACE' - NNWA 'KEEPERS OF THE DRAGON'

G'day all,
Greyhawk you wrote;

"If that person was known to be a kill hog as I call them, just for glory, or foolish acts, if they die then Honor is not applied, that would be for lack of a better word fool hearty"

Hmmm, under that definition MvR would qualify. He particularly preyed on "lame ducks" His last dog fight fits your criteria to a "T"

The other definition;

"The point I'm trying to make is, the only people who do not deserve the honor that comes with death are the ones that cause deaths because they were stupid".

Again this could fit MvR's last dog fight, Frank Lukes "gun fight", or Bob Little going up at night to tackle a Gotha.

Greyhawk, trying to define or to have guidelines on honour and heroism is at best foolish. War is an ugly thing, men react to it in many strange ways. No matter how you try to title this thread or nominate a candidate for "worst ace" you are only going to smear some ones good name. All men who fought deserve to be honoured, not only those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Just to have the guts to front up at a recruitment office in times of war, shows you the character of the man.

Andrew.

G'day Jim....where the heck have you been?

At least it got my point through. Some things I write to get a point through, no nessecarily a personal belief. But what I am saying is, they still deserve some honor for serving. I never said anything about MvR being the perfect flier, and I'm not in to defend anyone, except those who deserve it. If you died and you knew you saved the lives of some of your fellow soldiers would you want to be remembered for being a foolish soldier, or would you want to be remember for the things you did right.

What would you want your children to know about how you died.

I'm not trying to anger people, but anyone who can be in the front lines with little training and die in an act that could save lives, they deserve honor. I'm not saying give them medals, or 50 round salute, but they should be remembered for being there when their country needed them.

Otherwise, why have a Vietnam Memorial, they all lost the conflict because of politians not wanting to take the proper action, or even in Korea for that matter. Are you saying only those who survived should be remembered? -End-

Greyhawk,
ALL the men who went and (key phrase here) served honorably - deserve rememberance! Those who went to war at the behest of their country, did so with trust that they were doing so for the greater good of their native land. Although you cannot say that is the only reason that men go off to fight. Pure altruism is a rare thing. BUT to do so out of a sense of duty is honorable and deserves better than what the Vietnam veterans received when they came home. I am a Vietnam era veteran and still was spit at by my fellow countrymen for serving during that time. Do I harbor animosity? No! They were ignorant people doing what was faddish at that time. It's always easier to look for an excuse not to go, than to put your life on the line for your country. Look at our current president! But I have more regard for those who have risked conscientiously, than those who passed on the opportunity because it was an imposition on their lives. For those who for medical reasons couldn't serve, they had a valid reason. However it isn't for them to judge the actions of men under fire, as well as those who have never experienced it. A person doesn't necessarily have to be in combat to be a hero. If they risk their life so that others may live, or that which is right (moral and just) may prevail, they too are heroes. So in essence just remember this ....
It isn't the editor, or the poet, or orator who gave you freedom of speech and press .... it is the veteran!
It isn't the judges, and the lawyers who give you the freedom to protest and speak your innermost feelings .... it is the veteran.

And sadly, it is the veteran who served under the flag and who bore the flag in battle, and many times was buried under that flag .... who gave you the right to burn that flag in protest!

So much is owed to the veteran, that so many refuse to acknowledge!

I am proud to be a veteran and to serve, for I am in a unique brotherhood of men who know the REAL meaning of sacrifice and devotion!
Regards,
Jim 'ACE' - NNWA 'KEEPERS OF THE DRAGON'

P.S. Andrew, my brother, I am still fighting the good fight.

This is what I have be trying to say the whole time. To those who burn flags can go to hell for all I care for, those who have died for it deserve the honor, you just proved my point.



I never said there wasn't heroes outside of war, I have several of them. I really don't care for Clinton, I never voted for him. Personally, I don't see him as a role model, he is the Tricky Dick of the Ninety's. It still haven't decided on Gore or Goerge W. Bush, But from what I've heard Gore is the better of the two.

GreyHawk,
The LIVING as well as the dead should both be remembered for their sacrifice.

" It still haven't decided on Gore or Goerge W. Bush, But from what I've heard Gore is the better of the two. " Gore is probably just as deficit of character as Clinton, and would continue this administration's erosions of the freedoms bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know he's anti 2nd Amendment. Bush IS pro-gun and that is the one factor about America that will keep us from being invaded by a foreign power in an armed conflict; and keep us from becoming slaves. Once the right to keep and bear arms is gone ... we've gone from freemen to slavery.
Regards,
Jim 'ACE' - Son of Liberty

[Shooter]

I seriously believe that the worst aces (a term which is impossible to quantify) are often those who lost their wingmen in combat, while they themselves survived.

Under that definition, one of the worst is also one of the best. Richard I. Bong shot down 40 Japanese a/c during the Second Big Show, but he also lost several wingmen in the process.

OTOH...Erich Hartmann landed "by other means" 18 times while flying on the Eastern Front, but he NEVER lost a wingman.

Under our mutual definition, who was the HERO?

My vote goes to Hartmann.


Shooter sends