Worst Ace.

We have had forums galore on the best aces, greatest aces, top ten aces. So how about we go with the Worst Ace. Any body's opinion is welcome. There are two that come to my mind, and I have often stated that one is a favorite of mine. René Fonck and Billy Bishop. This may anger some people in the forum, and for that I apologize, that is not my intent. The reason I have choosen these two men because they have the reputation as liars. René Fonck tried to claim victories of a dead man, and Billy Bishop I have two words, Victoria Cross. This mission had to many inconsistencies. He said him and Little had planned to raid the areodrome together, ha, he hadn't flown with another aircraft for nearly a month, save large scale attacks. Plus this happened shortly after Little's death gave him the ability for another lie. These two men are the worst of the best in my mind. Then straight out worst ace of the war had to be Hermann Göring, commanding with an iron fist, hardly ever flying with his crew, and a very hated man in J.G. Richthofen. Public enemy number one has got to be him.

[Billy_Bishop]

First, get your facts straight. Bishop talked about doing the raid with Ball. However Ball was killed whilst Bishop was on leave. After he came back from leave, he talked to Willy Fry about doing it. Fry confirmed this later. However Fry decided not to go when the time came.

So where are the inconsistencies now?

VBR,

Al Lowe

p.s.

There's no such thing as a "worst ace". Do try to denigrate ANYONE who risked his life in aerial combat does an injustice not only to those accused, but to ANY who took to the air in defense of their country.

The inconstistencies is in the identification of the aircraft he seen, the fact that the planes that struck the tree is not confirmed with records, plus the simple fact that he said he went, and still no witnesses has come forward that I have come across. For a long time I was a Billy fan, when I started researching the V.C. mission was the first thing I studied on him, the reports I had read said "No reliable witnesses". This forum may seem to degrade other pilots, but what about those asking about the best, that is the ultimate put down, if you ask me the men who did die deserve more credit then those who lived, because who knows those poor souls could have been future presidents, Prime Minsters, etc. I you want to call this degrading, then say the same for the lists that call for the better ones, because in my mind, those who have fallen deserve to be reckonized in someway that normally they would not be. Yes, I admit I errored in naming this thread, but it still remains that those who have been awarded through no verification can either be been as liars or glory hunters. Another thing, Al why not defend Mr Fonck and what I said about him. It seems everytime some one says something bad about William Bishop that you are there. Now like I said in the thread, it may anger others, so I am not going to apologize for it, again. People have a right to their opinions. You may not like what people have to say, but even Bishop awknowledge the fact that people did not like him. PS, in all fairness to those who have fallen, I would change this title, I regretted it when I seen it in blue print on the forum page. But when every one is going around asking about the best, their doing the same thing placing others above the rest. I know what is like to loose someone to a bullet, I have all the respect in the world for those who have fallen, but right now I think some of the non recognized individuals of the war should have their time in the sun.

[Billy_Bishop]

I have seen some combat reports from various pilots in WWI who either mis-identified their targets, or, as in Fonck's case, didn't even TRY to identify their target, simply labeled them as "EA" for Enemy aircraft. I'd like to see ANYONE in this forum put in a position of defending their life AND try to get the correct identification of a machine that's trying to shoot them at the same time.

Bishop merely filed a report, HE didn't confirm his claims, and HE didn't put himself in for the VC, yet that seems to be what you are insinuating.

Why should I defend Fonck? So he wasn't liked. So he was a braggert. So he claimed more victories than were actually confirmed. Still doesn't make him a liar either. He just thought that ALL of his claims should have been confirmed. They weren't, and he didn't like it. Oh well. Besides, I don't like the man, and I've never met him!

Glory seekers, maybe. But then I think most of the big aces were glory seekers to one point or another. Liars? Well, no one has been able to prove it beyond a doubt. Though I am sure that some may claim it, they still can't prove it.

I think instead, you have to look at a system that would take some at their word that they shot down enemy aircraft without any witnesses present.

Funny thing is, the RFC still didn't confirm EVERYONE of Bishop's claims, so there must have been some sort of criteria that they followed.

As well, of his 80+ claims, 72 of which were confirmed, he had witnesses for 20+ of those, yet I would be hard pressed to find any evidence of his WITNESSED claims. Did his witnesses lie too?

Finally, if his raid of 2 June, 1917 didn't really happen, why then did the RFC award him the VC? Propaganda maybe? Still, they took 2 months before they announced the award. That's longer than any other Air VC announcement for any Ace, with the exception of Mick Mannock, and his award was likely for propaganda purposes as well. Not that Mannock didn't deserve it. I think he should have been awarded it sooner.

But I get from your tone that had Bishop been killed in the war, you wouldn't be questioning him. As for the others, there are plenty of people who speak up for them.

Yet, in case you haven't noticed before, hardly anyone is willing to take on the masses in defense of Billy. It's more or less fallen to me. It's not a position I relish, but someone has to do it.

And yes, you should have used something other than "worst ace" for this thread. But it's too late now.

One more thing, do you think you could break up your paragraphs, one HUGE paragraph makes it hard to read.

VBR,

Al Lowe
"On the edge of destiny, you must test your strength."
- Billy Bishop-

[wings]

How about "most questionable ace"?

[Soderbaum]

Hi Al

Have you really read some of Foncks combat reports...?
Do they verify the statement that Fonck did not try to identify his victims?

As a supplements to these combat reports of all his claims(unconfirmed and confirmed) should also be witness reports from his comrades(or ground)...Did they also try "not" to identify the victim...?

We can leave his book out of discussion.

VBR
Gunnar

[Vin]

I nominate Jan Olieslagers as the worst ace. He flew 491 sorties and engaged in 97 dogfights, yet his 5 qualifying victories took 2 years and 8 months to achieve. His first was on 12 September 1915, his fifth was on 3 May 1918. Thereafter he had only one further victory, 2 weeks later, on 19 May 1918.

Er, mind you he did survive the war, which is more than many of his betters did.

You can have the concept of a "worst ace" without denigrating someone who risked his life in aerial combat.


Vin

Has one of you gentlemen ever be in action ? I did and I would not dare to give an opinion on things which did happen to others while fighting. One NEVER KNOW what the reactions are when under enemy fire.

A) I am not insinuating that he put himself up for the V.C, I am simply stating that with an unconfirmed situation like this true or not does not deserve that much attention, The D.S.O would have worked fine until it was confirmed. B) It is insulting to me that you would think that I would wish death upon any one, I have never insulted you, and I expect the same. Furthermore, What I was insinuating was in fact, if it wasn't for the people that had lost there lives, the tables could have been turned for any one. C)I was not stating a tone in my writing, I was stating my opinion. If you want a tone, it comes from your entries. I am stating that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and if you don't like them, you can state that, but not through insults. In the way of his flying, their were only few that matched his abilities in the sky. His dogfighting abilities were matched by of the greater aces, But until it is comfirmed my views will not change. On René Fonck, I don't rightly care that he may or may not have had 127 kills, the point is trying to lay claim to victories of a dead man is just plain wrong, and he got bit in the but from it. "If I should come out of this war alive, I shall have more luck then brains" Manfred Von Richthofen

[rammjaeger]

I think also the term "worst ace" is not chosen very lucky.

Concerning Fonck: Ca. two years ago I was reading also a source with a list of his victories and the typ of the enemy airplane were often reported very vague or like "enemy airplane". I remember also the verification of his victories were until now rather limited (maybe because of missing typ of enemy airplane or missing time of day - at least some sources claimed that).

Maybe the French forumitee can help us here with a more detailed French source.

BTW: Last week I bought two books containing the French magazin with the name "L´Illustration" for 1918 - I found a 36 pages report about aviation in war and lots of pictures and photographs of Nungesser, Fonck and so on. Hope to close my "French gap" on this way a little bit.