Bishop

For those with an interest in the Bishop story this months Cross and Cockade has a paper written by W.M Fry who served with Bishop. This is of interest as Fry witheld permission to publish until after his death (Aug 1992). I doubt if it will change any of the entrenched views on Bishop and his activities, but as the testament of one who was there it deserves consideration.

andy

I do not have entrenched views on the perennial Bishop saga but would make the following points regarding Willie Fry's memoir.
1 He is obviously an honourable and truthful man.
2 He was extremely hurt at the attack made upon him in the Canadian parliament.
3 He cannot prove any of his assertions except to say that there were cordite burns, suggesting that they came from too close a range to come from another aircraft. In addition he does not mention the holes in the top plane in his book.
3 We learn for the first time that he expressed doubts which obviously came to the ears of his C.O. Fry suggests that because he was ordered to apologise to Bishop, it meant that his Commanding Officer was beginning to have doubts. The more likely scenario, it seems to me, would be the opposite, i.e. that the C.O. was convinced that Bishop had attacked the airfield.
4 The report in Fry's book states that there were two aircraft and not just the one in the article.
I do not know whether or not Bishop attacked the airfield but to suggest that somebody would go to those extraordinary lengths to concoct such a story, appears somewhat difficult to believe, especially when one considers that Bishop approached Fry to come with him.
We would, I think, be interested to know what Alex Revell thinks of all this. He knew Willy well.
I hope this item does not lead to the usual abuse.
VBR
Peter S.
P.S.I felt a little saddened at the article because Willie was such an honourable and brave man who wrote this at the end of his long life.

Damn! I had to let my subscription to C&C lapse for financial reasons this year, so I haven't seen the article.

Just a thought--could tracer bullets passing through fabric leave marks similar to cordite burns via the phosphorus-like compound spewing out the back of the bullet? I guess the problem is that if true Fry would have presumably been familiar with this; just thinking that if Bishop was hit by ground fire at low altitude they could be using a high proportion of tracers to assist with aiming.

A. A. Nicod, a 60 Squadron mechanic, examined the damage to Bishop's Nieuport and saw nothing suspicious. He wrote about what he saw in 1934, saying the plane was damaged by both bullets and anti-aircraft cannons. I should think he knew a lot more about aircraft battle damage than Fry.

Nicod also wrote at length about how popular Bishop was, about how overjoyed the pilots were when he got the VC. His description doesn't sound like Bishop was disbelieved by the majority of his peers.

Others who saw the damage did not express any doubts in their writings, including Molesworth, Scott and Percival.Caldwell came to doubt Bishop, but only after studying German records. Those same records, I should note, don't confirm many of Caldwell's victories.

We should also remember that Bishop invited Fry to go on the aerodrome raid twice, once the night before and once that very morning. I can't believe someone planning a fake attack would be inviting others to come with him right to the point of departure.

As most of us know, there's a theory that Bishop shot up Jasta 20 on June 2. What most don't know is that Jasta 20 records note that three of its pilots were "wounded in a bomb raid on the airfield" at an unspecified date. No other details are given. No names, no date. Did the man who made the entry in the Jasta 20 diary use the term "bomb raid" when he simply meant air raid?

[Billy_Bishop]

Well, uh, !!! Drat, I give up. You guys beat me to the punch.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[wings]

If Bishop did attack an airfield, it does not prove that he really got those victories that he claimed. Also, Jasta 20 was no longer in the area.

[Billy_Bishop]

Yes they were. :-P

VBR,

Al Lowe

The obverse side of the coin is that there is absolutely no evidence of an attack on a German airfield on that date. NONE and this is unarguable.Horne did not fly over the field as stated;Fry was his deputy patrol leader (Bishop was the Leader) and would have known or authorised it. He is adamant that it did not take place.
The other hypothesis that would account for Bishop needing to concoct his story because of his problem, which was Willie Fry.
He had asked Fry to accompany him, presumably he needed top cover. (See Tich Rochford airfield attack and Collishaw unseen overhead.)
What may have happened was that Bishop got jumped when about to, or before, the attack on an airfield and had to flee. That would account for the groundfire if he crossed the lines at a low height. He lost his bearings and landed. He would have been in an excited state. He admits he landed and would then have had to go home with his tail between his legs. His problem was that Fry knew he was going to try this escapade.
He removes the gun and because of the harsh recoil fires it too close to the tail and the wrong angle for the top plane.Pity about the cordite marks and it was the ground crew who drew Fry's attention to it.
He found he couldn't get the gun back, (see Fry on Bowden Cable)and had to invent a cock and bull story about dumping it overboard to save weight being low on fuel. What rubbish! McScotch had a Nieuport with twin guns which didn't affect the performance.
He comes back and rushes in to tell Willie Fry who unfortunately doesn't believe him.
What do you do? You are stuck with the story.
The C.O. is a ruthless, ambitious man, goes along and poor Willie does not know why he is taken along with Bishop to lunch with the notables. Then turfed out afterwards to walk home because they needed the exercise? A good chance for them to talk about it alone.
Fry is obviously not a political animal. Only twenty years old and somewhat quarrelsome. An orphan without friends and influence.
I don't say I believe what I have written but it seems to me to have as much credence as an attack on a non existent aerodrome.
VBR
Peter S.

[Ron_F]

Peter,
The hypothesis that Bishop landed, got out, took the Lewis and fired into his plane. then, without chocks or someone to hold the plane, started it back up and flew home. i think its possible, but HIGHLY improbable.
that theory has been hashed out in 'Hanging a legend'.
not flaming you, just countering the theory. :]

vbr
Ron

[Billy_Bishop]

"I don't say I believe what I have written but it seems to me to have as much credence as an attack on a non existent aerodrome."

Except, the aerodrome did exist!

VBR,

Al Lowe