MvR's 9th

[Soderbaum]

Hi all

I saw in a recent thread "Barons questionable victories" that MvR 9th victory on 20 Nov 1916, in the book "Under The Guns of MvR" , that the authors came to the conclusion that it was probably a dupclicate for Kirmayers victory...

Kirmayer shot down his BE at Miraumont at 9:00 within German hold lines...

Manfred did shot down his BE forty minutes later South Grandcourt between the front lines. I would suspect that there were thousand of witnesses for this victory from both sides...

My simple question is, How did these authors came to the conclusions of some duplicate..?

:-/
Gunnar

Dear Gunnar,
*I take it that you don't have this book in your possession...
*The authors of UNDER THE GUNS OF THE RED BARON, Franks, Giblin, & McCrery started with the fact that the RFC reported only one loss that day; further, the areas in which MvR and Kirmaier claimed their respective victories are within 3 kilometers of each other. It doesn't add to the authors' case in that MvR's combat report states the time of victory as being 9:40 am, while their text states "within 10 minutes of each other", i.e. Kirmaier at 9 am, vR at 9:10 am -- TAKE YOUR PICK...
*The point, however, when the trio's evidence (if you'll pardon the expression) takes flight is the downed pilot's recounting of this dogfight after the war; he was interviewed by Floyd Gibbons in 1927. The pilot, Lt. Thomas Henry Clark, 15 Sqn, stated that "The Germans gave me a name which I now forget, but which was certainly not Richthofen's, as the name of the Flight Commander of this German flight..."
* It gets better. In the brief biography that the authors provide, it is stated that "Clarke always contended that he was not shot down by von Richthofen and stated that his opponent - who, in appearance, had looked nothing like the Red Baron - visited him in his cell shortly after his capture. [Clarke was to spend two years as a POW - C.L.] From the description Clarke gave, his visitor was, undoubtedly, Kirmaier, the Commanding Officer of Jasta 2. But, as neither spoke the other's language, the reason for the visit was never entirely clear!"
* Well, you don't have to tell ME the reason - obviously, Stefan was there to get Clarke's account of the dogfight! (Well, actually, that's just speculation on my part, as I'm not aware that either of the "two" victors were doubted for their claims that day...)
* MvR went on to down #10, an FE-2b, that same afternoon...
* And, Gunnar, you're just going to LOVE this - in two other books, when the Baron's victories are listed, #9 is given to be a BE12 (pilot unknown on one of these lists)... have a great day!

Hals und Beinbruch,
Captain "Grounded" Lewis

[Soderbaum]

Thanks Captain Lewis

The reason for my question was that I dont have the book "Under The Guns of the Red Baron", and that I was "very" surprised to see such a statement...!

Except MvR combat report, there exists at least one more ORIGINAL German source which gives the time difference of 40 minutes, and NONE to my knowledge which has 10 minutes difference...

The distance between the crash sites could according to my map also be around 5 km, depending if you knew the exact locations where the a/c came down, but the most important factor is that Kirmaiers victory came down in German hold lines while MvR`s victory came down within allied hold lines(NML).....
.....so frankly I cant see any links between these two victories...

If Gibbons or some author British author had the idea that MvR victory could have been the BE 2 from 15 sq in early 30s or during 1920s, they must have done an "bad" research...

However the identify of MvR victory is still un-identfied. Both RFC Com and TSTB only mentioned the two British losses which fell over German hold lines....

The German reference BE could also in some German material indicate the meaning "British Einsitzer", which could be any type of a !-s but probably a 1-s with British cockades...

I am convinced that the complete loss list of British a/c is still to be written.... .....In a recent thread by "Feldflieger" still some British a/c which came down within German lines CANT be found in available records.....
...I also have some reports of captured British Flyer which does NOT exists any known corresponding loss list...

...You also have the British "walk away" crashes within own lines which probably are difficult to find even in British reports...
However the British loss reports we have today are without any doubt, the best comparing to other involved countries... 8)

At last I miss the research from/of different ground troops like the German Army Corps reports, Flak reports, Balloon company reports etc. Some of these reports contains every a/c which came down within a certain area(both own and enemy)....however these are tons of papers to read through.. :-[

:
Gunnar

[Testerchild]

If this was Billy Bishop we were talking about some bright spark would say: "No recorded loss, so he must have lied!" My guess is that the crew of MvR's BE simply got home OK, that their aircraft was probably recovered more-or-less intact, and so no casualty or loss was recorded. They may have even put it down to engine failure! But that is not to dispute MvR's claim, just to say that some victories CAN'T be proved even though they happened - and this is one where the British records are virtually still complete.

Why can't we be as generous with Billy?

[Soderbaum]

Testerchild

Your statement is even more surprising. However my english is not so good, so I dont know the exact meaning of virtually complete, if you mean complete you are in deep water...

People like Trevor Henshaw(where are you?) who had digged in British files over 10 Years, and probably in material few other had looked through, still find new British losses....

But perhaps you had been researching this area much more than them...?

I agree with you that it is a "must" to tackle the Bishop claims with the same research standards...

However in this particular case, the "probably" BE came down just inside British hold lines in a area called No Mans land, and therefore in my meaning ought to be easier to verify....partly because the area was peppered with ground soldiers from both sides who possible saw the BE go down...
If none of these people actually did NOT see any a/c go down in this area at the right time, we can easily exclude MvR victory as wrong statement(It is also ok to call it a lie if you want)...

So if Bishop had any claims which came down in No Mans land(?), they also ought to be easier to verify...

:
Gunnar

[Testerchild]

Gunner,

No, I don't mean 'complete' as in nothing at all missing. I mean 'nearly complete' as in not very much missing, especially in comparision to the vaunted German records....and I do not presume to say my research even comes near to that of Henshaw and others. My point is that if Henshaw and others like him can't find it then it probably doesn't exist. As you say, thousands should have seen it and several regiments on both sides should have recorded it. So my guess is that MvR reported what he honestly THOUGHT to be true, but that like in many other cases what you think you see is not always what actually happened! I don't think MvR lied. I don't think Billy Bishop lied either!

Cheers!

Dear Testerchild,
*Perhaps, one day, someone will write a book, UNDER THE GUNS OF BILLY BISHOP... I have thought about your first post, and you may have a point there; but not that we would be less generous with Bishop, but that Franks & Co. may be overly generous with MvR. They certainly WEREN'T generous with Göring in UNDER THE GUNS OF THE GERMAN ACES: "...We cannot help but be struck by the recurring inconsistencies attending so many of Göring's victories..." In their introduction, they wrote: "In the case of Hermann Göring the anomalies and inconsistencies were staggering." Then they ended with, "... We decided to present the facts in so far as they could be ascertained and to let readers come to their own conclusions!"

*Here is MvR's combat report for #9: "Jagdstaffel Boelcke, 0940 hrs., south of Grandcourt. Vickers two-seater.
*"Together with several machines of our Staffel we attacked, on th enemy side above Grandcourt at 1,800 metres altitude, several low flying artillery planes. After having harassed a BE two-seater for a time, the plane disappeared in the clouds and then crashed to the ground, between the trenches south of Grandcourt. The machine was taken immediately under atrillery fire and destroyed. Baron von Richthofen
*"Weather: low clouds, strong winds and showers."

*I would like to make two points. First, why did he call it a "Vickers"? I was under the impression that a Vickers referred to a pusher-type aeroplane, and not a tractor-type. The point being, this edition of UTGOTRB is rife with typos, a possible one having been mentioned in my first post above; have I found another?
*Secondly, I believe some weight should be given to the fact that this was MvR's NINTH 'official' victory -- his eigth having been eleven days previous. The point being, MvR would have known that he was NOT up for the PlM (as both Bölcke and Immelemann were after their eigth victories) -- wouldn't this have colored his judgement in terms of victory claims? In other words, he was trying to run up his score, and an enemy OOC, or even a DITC -- well, that was good enough for him! Please re-read his account -- perhaps he honestly believed that the plane that entered the low clouds (the "undercast"?) had crashed and was destoyed by artillery fire. He certainly (at least, to my skewered way of thinking) would have wanted to believe this, even to the point of lying... but I prefer to call it, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, 'wishful thinking'.

*Further, in future, we should take into account just where does a disputed "confirmation" fall in the aces' victory tally, whether in the beginning or at the end of the aces' career. In MvR's case, I would say that he was actively trying to run up a score to win a coveted medal that he already believed was justly his...

*Besides, if someone ever wrote a book entitled FLIERS AND LIARS, I'm sure that he'd make a ton of money on just the title alone... but FLIERS AND WISHFUL THINKERS ??? Hmmm... what rhymes with 'thinkers'?...

VBR,
Captain "F&WT" Lewis

[Soderbaum]

Thanks Capt Lewis for the combat report

I dont knew if PRO has the original German text...?, but the English translation indicates that MvR actually saw the British a/c crash....
Otherwise he would have wrote something like, it was seen be other fellows of my Staffel to crash to the ground, or it was observed by ground troops to have crashed....

However it is still a possibility that he lied about the outcome of this fight(who think militarian dont lie.. )...

What I knew the PRO dont held the witnesses reports from MvR combat reports, so it difficult to say what they possible saw... :-[

Could the descripition Vickers be a typo by the translator regarding his later victory in the afternoon(mix up)...?

:
Gunnar

[rammjaeger]

A speculation for the Baron: He could simply mix up an explosion on the ground (because of ground battle) with the impact of a crashing airplane. That happened very often in WWII (e.g. battle of Kursk) and was also possible in WWI.

Captain Lewis,
In fact "Wishful thinkers and drinkers" would be a well-selling title for an aviation book about WWI. It makes not many problems to prove the wishful thinking and drinking in many cases.
Nevertheless I feel the most succesful pilots were rather "dry".

VBR
Rammjaeger

BTW I feel still unharmed by the "whole RFC".

Dear Rämmchen, Söderchen, and Testerkind,
*MvR's #10, his first 'double', WAS a FE-2b; here is his combat report:

*"Together with four planes, I attacked a Vickers two-seater type above the clouds at 2,500 metres altitude. After 300 shots adversary broke through the clouds, pursued by me. Near Grandcourt I shot him down."

*Comparing this claim with his earlier one of that day makes for some interesting reading; but I leave that to you. Please note that, this time, MvR was quite clear as to the fate of his victim...

*I have a question about MvR's #8 (BE-2c, 9 Nov 1916): in his report, he writes that the "Occupants: Seriously wounded, pilot very seriously; observer, shoulder." Yet, Franks & Co conclude that this was a bomb-carrying BE, and, as such, DID NOT HAVE AN OBSERVER. They identify the victim as 2nd Lt. John (or Ian) Cameron, and let the matter rest there...

*Further on, #16 (DH-2, 27 Dec 1916) is identified as none other than James 'FLYING FURY' McCudden: "Enemy plane crashed to ground on enemy side, one kilometre behind trenches near Ficheux." I'm not going to argue the veracity of MvR or the accuracy of Franks & Co; but I do wonder what the Bishoprics would have made of this had a 'similar' claim been made by Our Mr. Bishop...

*On the other hand, while Franks & Co claim that MvR downed 12 while flying a Halberstadt D-2 (while the Albatros D-3 was withdrawn due to the sesquiplane problem), they do clarify, even going out on the proverbial limb, the downing of MvR in March 1917...
*It was (previously) concluded that this took place on 9 March; they claim 6 March. In both 'versions', it was the same squadron, 40 Sqn, flying FE-8's.

*I suppose the real 'victor' of this thread is Mr. Abbott, who has on occaision warned Forumites on taking Franks & Co without question... Enjoy your leave, Dan Sänchen...

Hals und Beinbruch,
Capt. Lëwischen