A Little Quiz

I came across the following passage in some reading this weekend.So,with some editing so as not to give away the answer, here it is...( the answer, source,and reason I put this up I will put in as a 'reply'..)
(The pilot)has claimed to have downed more than 50 aircraft. It has nevertheless been proven that a great number of these returned to their airfields in a damaged condition. This renders all..verification impossible, and ..there is no indication of the place or trhe date of these alleged successes. (POW's)state that his method of combat was as follows: since he flies as commander..he lets his pilots attack first and then dives down, picking the easiest adversary. At other times he flies at a great height and dives, surprising isolated observation planes. If his first attack is not successful he breaks off combat immediately. He refuses to have individual duels of a long duration or when it is necessary to prove courage.

Is this about:
A)Richthofen
B)Fonck
C)Guyenemer
D)Bishop
E)Udet

hmm........

C)Guyenemer!!!!!

The passage is from a German newspaper, Die Woche, 6 October 1917, after the fall of Guyenemer. It is found in 'The Storks' by Franks/Bailey on p.55.
My point is that this kind of "tearing down" of the aces is exactly the same as what we hear today,on this forum sometimes,and could have applied to any of the names listed, in some people's views.I am amazed that this passage was in fact contemporaneous, and regarding Guyenemer, who doesn't get this sort of treatment nowadays.

It should not happen to any of them, I say. Food for thought. VBR, JimR

[Barrett]

The writer Just Didn't Get It.
It's not necessary "to have long duels or to prove courage." It's only necessary to establish air superiority in the desired portion of cubic airspace.

Who cares,,,,,,,, they were there and you werent

Pat

[PeterL]

Jim, bang on mate. My interest is in the aeroplanes rather than the personalities and in the legend rather than the history, which is how I am able to keep my distance from the more heated debates on the forum. But the description of his tactical methods doesn't accord with the little I know of Guynemer.

unashamedly unrevised

Peter L
www.storks.cwc.net

As this article was written in 1917 it can only be called propaganda and should not be considered seriously.In Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WW1(published in 1919...and they were there also) states that by August 1918 the German air force had been totally destroyed and demoralized beyond hope. Jane's is published in Great Britain. We know that not to be the case just as this article is isn't.

The answer is A, he lead a flying circus, a squadron of airplanes. He has been known to dive
out of the sky.

I agree with Pat: it doesn't jive with Guynemer, who was no coward nor a "pick-off-the-easy-target" kind of guy.

If I was "forced" to pick one: Fonck. Problem is, on reflection, I choose him because I don't LIKE Fonck. Which goes back to somebody else's comments about this being propaganda (written in 1917, no less!)

Knowing this (i.e., it's publication date, & the fact that it was written for a German newspaper), I would suppose we can all dismiss the "facts" laid out there!

[leo]

May I point out that propaganda which lacked factual basis was not totally a German thing. The allies used it well and often.

If there were a pilot of any nation who managed to shoot down a large number of the enemy by ANY MEANS, straggler-damaged-you name it, he would have been decorated by his grateful govenment.