Bishop

Bishop states his intentions of attacking the German aerodrome. He issues his invitation. The following morning he takes off on a lone patrol. He runs into enemy aircraft, gets into a dogfight and takes a few hits – he may even have shot one or more down. When he arrives back, having previously stated his intentions, he changes his account from a dogfight over no-mans-land to shooting up a German aerodrome.

Possible ?

[Ginger.]

Are there any reports of a dogfight over no-mans land about the right time?I'll bet the German Records do'nt have one.

William Fry – A Revisionist View?

I think I’m going to stick my neck out here, but my reply will be in two parts because of space:

Having studied Al Lowe’s Bishop site and read the C&C article by William Fry I would like to offer the following thoughts:

1. 1st June 1917: Fry’s submission to C&C states that Bishop invited him to join him on an early raid the following morning, but that he declined because (a) he had a headache and (B) he was down to lead the early patrol anyway. Early next morning Fry is still in bed, as his own patrol has been called off because of the weather, when he is awoken by Bishop who tells him of the results of his raid. Fry is amazed at this, and cannot believe that Bishop could have done so much in weather conditions that stopped him from doing anything at all. It can be imagined that Fry might have felt a little sheepish at the mere thought of it – and of how it would reflect on him.

What we do not know at this time is whether it was Fry himself who cancelled the early patrol, or whether that instruction came from “above”. Surmise is of no use here: what we need as evidence is an authenticated record.

2. Fry later examines Bishop’s machine, and decides that Bishop is a liar. Instead of challenging Bishop to his face, if need be in private, Fry chooses to discuss his doubts with the maintenance crew. He says they all kept their doubts to themselves, but word leaks out anyway.

3. Major Scott, it appears, has no doubts whatever about Bishop’s story and is understandably concerned when he learns that Fry has doubts and has discussed them with others, including the junior ranks. Major Scott may well have thought this to be prejudicial to good order, discipline and morale, and so he diplomatically suggests to Fry that he should apologise to Bishop. When Fry does not do so Major Scott is outraged and decides to send him home because he is causing divisions in the squadron. Major Scott might also be forgiven if he wonders whether Fry’s attacks on Bishop are based on throwing others off the scent re Fry’s own inability to fly that morning. Hence the adverse report he sends on after Fry.
Now I have not seen Major Scott’s ‘adverse report’ on Fry. But its contents might be illuminating: Does Scott suggest Fry was a coward, or merely that Fry’s behaviour was not quite up to scratch in terms of his being “an officer and a gentlemen”
Can anyone quote from this report?

4) Fry’s submission as published in C&C mentions various ‘exhibits’: but none of these can actually be produced. If the Prosecuting Counsel in a Law Court were to introduce the idea of exhibits, and then not be able to produce them, then the Judge would certainly reprimand him (or her) and instruct the jury to ignore all mention of said exhibits. We should do the same.

5) Fry himself makes it clear in his submission that he feels greatly injured by the accusations of cowardice that were made in Canada many years later, after he had apparently supported the anti-Bishop campaign. Such injured feelings go, to some extent, with pride: the same injured pride that perhaps led to him resenting Bishop’s success while he had lain abed.

Part 2 to follow

William Fry: Part Two:



I do not claim that the above interpretation is the truth because I do not know if it is the truth. But what I hope I have done here is to show how easy it is to blacken someone’s name when they are dead and gone and cannot reply. In the above I seem to accuse Fry of lying, as he accused Bishop. But I never met either man so I cannot form an opinion of their veracity. All I do know for certain is that I will never know for certain.

My conclusions? An absence of proof of Bishop’s attack could be due to deliberate German reticence, or to those particular records having been lost or destroyed.
If the detailed German daily record for all local units on 2nd June 1917 no longer exists then we are in no position to say whether the Germans recorded the attack or not.

Fry’s submission itself may be one of three things: (1) the righteous indignation of a wronged man (2) the spiteful ravings of a man who knew he had behaved badly and was trying to cover it up, or (3) the mistaken point of view of a man who sincerely believed he was in the right. The fact that Fry disputes Bishop’s story does not mean that he is correct in doing so.

As to those who say there should be records of German casualties: we all know that the first casualty of war is Truth: but what is Truth? Whose Truth? And why do we never see Vfw or Ltn Truth mentioned in the German Casualty lists?

As to those who believe Fry’s assertions in their entirety: are they saying Bishop found a spot near the front lines that was so incredibly isolated and hidden from view that there was no chance of any passing peasant or soldiery seeing or hearing him land and shoot up his own machine; and that after doing this he then calmly got back into his unsecured, engine running, shot-up machine and risked his life by taking off in it again in order to report his fictional enterprise? Oh come on, let’s be serious!

For myself, I will settle for believing that that neither Bishop nor Fry were deliberate liars: I am happy to accept that Bishop flew the mission as he reported it, and that Fry really did convince himself of the rightness of his own stand. But since neither can now answer to cross-examination why don’t we just leave it there, and let both these brave men rest in peace with their honour intact?

Bob

If bishop shot up the airfield but only succeeded in putting a few bullet holes in a hangar wall; if the 3 planes he downed were not seriously damaged; and if no one was injured, the only report might have been to the effect "aerodrome attacked at dawn by lone enemy machine, which was driven off after causing only minor damage", and hardly wworthy of note. That is, Bishop could have done just what he said with insignificant results so far as the Germans were concerned. Or he could have faked it, but it is pretty amazing if he was actually able to find a deserted field near the front in which he could land with bad light conditions (it was early enough that ground lighting would have been poor), shoot up his own plane, and then get off again without attracting attention, Wasn't he flying a Nieuport, which couldn't idle? At any rate, if his claim is hard to believe, this explanation of the bullet holes in his plane is equally hard to believe.

[Billy_Bishop]

True, the explaination for the bullet holes is hard to believe...UNLESS, you believe as I do, that the bullet holes were the result of enemy action. And not some IMPOSSIBLE stunt such as landing and shooting his own aircraft.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Does anyone have any thoughts on the jettisoning of the lewis gun in flight?

andy

[Billy_Bishop]

Sure, if he was having problems with the gun, whether it was in trying to change the magazine, or if the gun was stuck in the down position, then I don't see all the hub-bub about his dismounting and discarding it.

I have a copy of the letter that Bob Bradford, former assistant director of the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa, wrote to the Canadian Senate Sub-committee on the NFB film. In it he details different parts of the so-called controversy. Including the difficulty of landing the Nieuport and taking off again un-assisted as some have postulated. AND on dismounting and discarding the Lewis gun.

IF you want, you can see the HTML formated version at this link.

And for those who question his experience, I should point out that the National Aviation Museum had a rebuilt Nieuport 17 that they flew at airshows for quite some time, and Bob Bradford was an integral part of that operation. I know the aircraft crashed at an airshow, but I'm reasonably certain it was rebuilt, or replaced. IN fact, I'm 99.9% certain since someone from this forum sent me some pictures of it, including the cockpit controls.

VBR,

Al Lowe