Two on Twenty

[Darryl]

Hello Hannes,

Thankyou very much, as I value yours.

Firstly, the ‘homeground’ argument is, as you have said before, overused. To listen to some people, you would think only high flying LVG’s ever ventured WOL. My pet theory is that the Germans had a winner with the Eindekker, the Brits had trouble against the German two seaters early on. So the Germans developed a principle of using capable recon planes and letting the Jastas wait for the prey to come to them. Seems eminently sensible to me. But despite some common belief it was not an exclusive arrangement.

I am not as familiar with German records as you but a couple of points. From my readings it appears that if many pilots shot at an aircraft, they did not necessarily all put in a claim. It was discussed and perhaps decided before the reports were written. Therefore the “double up” would be substantially reduced?

The policy of requiring a ‘smoking hole’ would also have been on the pilot’s minds. Very few would put in a doubtful claim as constant U/C’s would make them look bad? Even if this was not at the forefront of their minds the whole culture of claiming was more reserved than the in the RFC.

As the Luftstreitkraefte required a ‘body’ (as a rule) the pilots would have needed to watch their victims down to a greater extent, making for more accurate reporting of location. They were no doubt assisted in this by (generally) having friendly witnesses on the ground, having the comfort of being EOL, the prevailing wind helping them home rather than hindering whether E or W of lines….and operating generally closer to their aerodrome , if only by reason of those aerodromes being closer to the front than the average Allied field.

So : homeground a lot of the time; tighter rules; a more reserved ‘culture’ on claims; and Habeas corpus. All adds up to less overclaiming.

The RFC on the other hand unintentionally encouraged overclaiming. If the rules are more lax is any self respecting pilot going to let an opportunity to claim go (yes, I know there were exceptions!).
And who can blame the pilot for putting a happy ending to a spinning Albatros or a smoking Pfalz?
Does this make him an optimist? Maybe. Does it make him a claim hungry liar? I think not.

Consider how each of the sides may report on an incident such as the one below:

I fired a 25 round burst from 30 yards at the EA who banked sharply and rolled on its back.
I was then attacked from behind by two EA. I turned sharply and met them headon but had to break away before getting my aim. Being low on fuel, I then dived for our lines. Looking back I noticed the first EA 4000 ft below spinning into the mist, it appeared to be hopelessly out of control.


Points to consider. Was it the same aircraft? How could he be sure at that distance? could he have maintained visual throughout the engagement?What happened to the other two? How high up did the mist come?


As I have said repeatedly, things happen damned fast in the air.


Your comments appreciated.

Very best regards

Darryl

Can we stick with the 2 VS 20 incident??? I have no "patriotic" feeling to match every allied claim with a german loss, i know it's slanted.

But in this action we have 4 down in flames...you can't tell me that's not going to be 4 destroyed planes. The 4 seen to crash are perhaps, not write offs i suppose, but my point is in THIS action they either LIED or the german records simply don't cover it!

For those who don't know and George never mentioned in his original thread is that Canadian Ace Alfred Atkey was the real "King of the Two-seaters" not McKeever. It was said of Atkey that he flew a DH-4 like it was a Sopwith Pup. One of the reasons he was transfered to Bristol Fighters to let his obvious talents shine through.

Marlon Schultz

Hannes Tager: You state that it "is senseless and unjustified to multiply the KNOWN losses (emphasis mine) by factors like 2,3 or 4 to satisfy the annoyed patriot". Known by whom, Hannes? I would suggest that it is senseless to reduce the KNOWN losses by a factor of 2,3 or 4 to satisfy the annoyed German record fool. I believe Atkey, not your German records. Prove me wrong Hannes.

[rammjaeger]

Hi mosby, niece to see you again at the Forum.
I was afraid you were imploding after your last choleric attack against Alex Revell!

[rammjaeger]

Darryl,

your explanations sound very reasonable. I know many examples but wish to illustrate the other “culture of claiming” with an example by the fighter pilot ace Schäfer. In “Wir Luftkämpfer” he reported about a particular mission and mentioned he came back and reported 1 flamer and and a second aircraft losing its “Seitenruder”. If reporting both victories he added he did not knew about the whereabouts of the second aircraft. The latter remark earned him the “scorning laughter of the hell” and many bad jokes of his comrades!! In the evening the second aircraft was reported to be fallen partly in British, partly behind German lines. Obviously that was safing Schäfer´s reputation.

I have no statistic (I know some forumites refuse ANY statistic but I disagree with this approach.) but I have also the impression the most arguments between German pilots – at least the arguments visible in documents – come from arguments between members of different squadrons. So it seems to be
justified to assume a mostly successful clarification process inside the Jasta before the written reports were going outside.

I picked some examples by accident and these examples seem to support that recorded arguments occurred mostly between members of different Jastas.

Udet had 4 arguments about victories within a decade of days.
12.8.17 Udet (Jasta 37) vs Heiligers (Jasta 30) – Heiligers gets the confirmation;
14.8.17 Udet vs Brüggmann (Jasta 30) – Udet gets the confirmation;
21.8.17 Udet vs Jasta 28 – Udet wins;
22.8.17 Udet vs Gille (Jasta 12) AND Funk (Jasta 30) – Funk is the winner.

Wüsthoff (Jasta 4) had 3 arguments within 12 days in September 1917 and a fourth in September 1917. His opponents were Tüxen (Jasta 6), (possibly) Wewer (Jasta 26), Heldmann (Jasta 10) and possibly Berkemeyer (Jasta 27). All opponents were again members of other squadrons. And Wüsthoff was maybe a real “stinker” horning on every victory claim within his range but obviously with bad factual knowledge to support his claim. Two or three of the victories were already credited to him but later taken away!! It is claimed his pilots (he was later squadron leader) disliked him. Finally MvR was transferring him out of the JG but that could be also primary result of his nervous condition.

The question comes up: Did Allied aviators seldom or never do the same? Did the unlucky “shared”-rule exclude any try or need for such a clarification (within the squadron and between different squadrons)?

I have reason to assume that the other “culture of claiming” in combination with other factors was resulting in a shifting of perception of many aviators: a common dive becomes an uncontrolled fall,
an aircraft apparently out of control is suddenly seen to have crashed – and an aircraft losing parts or fuel becomes a flamer. Than weather situations and heavy ground and air activity is making a correct report more than hard. Add the confusion in a swirling dogfight with double or even multiple counting of the same incidents (flamers, crashing and stalling aircraft) by different or even the same (!) person and the confusion about the own results is perfect! Strange that nobody “on the top” of the military hierarchy was trying to have a more objective picture! Did ever any British (or other) leader doubt the results of own victory reports during the war?

BTW I have no doubts that German aviators were intentionally lying sometimes – despite of rather strict rules. Not all contradictions in reports can be explained by confusion, normal errors or heat of combat etc. etc. Lying is part of human nature and even chimpansees can cheat and lie report scientists but that is another topic.

VBR
Hannes

BTW: I anwer Kory later, have to much to do.

I did some reseach into the battle which became famous in the annals of the R.A.F. as “Two against Twenty”.

First the references:

Official documents:
Combat report for this action.
Royal Air Force Communiqué dated for action occurring May 7 1918.

*Above the Trenches – Shores,Franks & Guest 1990


A.C. Atkey / C.G. Gass flying Bristol F2B 1164 - 5 Destroyed ( 2 in Flames)

J.E. Gurdon / A.J.H. Thorton flying Bristol F2B 1253 - 3 Destroyed ( 1 in Flames)

The location was reported 10m N.E. Arras at approx. 1845hrs to 1850+ hrs.


Its also believed Atkey’s last victory in a DH – 4 (A8064) was over Ltn. Paul Straehle (15 victories) Leader of Jasta 57 who was forced to land after being shot up by a two seater dated April 21 1918. Atkey reported out of control for this action. *

Atkey is recorded as being the top scoring British Empire pilot for the month of May 1918 with 27 victories. *
C.G. Gass was the most successful gunner in the R.A.F.*

Thanks Hannes and Marlon, still watching this thread with interest.

Well said Marlon!
George

[Richard_Schrader]

George;
Three cheers to you father, a great pilot and I am sure a great man.
Richard