Eddie's Real Score

[Billy_Bishop]

Gentlemen:
* *You cannot apply your "modern" standard over the accreditation standard of 1918, period! You MUST use the same rules that were applied by the various goverments in 1914-1918. Anything else,or any other method is irrelevent. *Accept what these goverments have accedited their aces and heros. *
* * Is your life so small and empty, that you cannot accept the accomplishments of these heroic men of all nations?
* * * * * * * Oh, for bluer skies,
* * * * * * * * * * Dan-San

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what I've said before, long ago, in a thread far, far away??

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Lufbery]

Gentlemen:

You cannot apply your "modern" standard over the accreditation standard of 1918, period! You MUST use the same rules that were applied by the various governments in 1914-1918. Anything else, or any other method is irrelevant. Accept what these governments have accredited their aces and heroes.

Dan-San,

Have you read any of the work by Bruce Gamble on VMF-214 or Dan Ford's book on the AVG? Both men took a critical look at after action reports by both the Americans and the Japanese. The results in almost all cases indicated that both sides over-claimed. Quite often there was simply a mistake as two pilot shot at the same plane and saw it go down. Other times, there was the equivalent of OOC claims. Neither the AVG nor the Marine aviators in WWII had gun cameras, so independent confirmation was difficult.

The bottom line is that establishing exactly what happened during an engagement was extremely difficult. This fact in no way denigrates the contributions of the pilots or their support staff. At least not in my mind.

Is your life so small and empty, that you cannot accept the accomplishments of these heroic men of all nations?

My life is neither small nor empty. I fully respect the accomplishments of the heroic men (and in some cases, women) who have fought for all nations over the ages. The fact is that people make mistakes, and reporting kills has always been an imprecise art. Another fact is that, historically, almost all kill claim totals have been too high. I would never accuse pilots of artificially inflating their claims. I would never accuse a pilot of being a liar.

I accept that the governments have official credits for World War I. I also accept that they reflect reality about as well as they can. I also accept that establishing exactly what happened at any one engagement is well neigh impossible. But I will not accept that just because some government or another says something is true, that automatically makes it true. I will accept that the official victory lists are the best that can be made with the information available at the time.

With all due respect, and warmest regards,

-Drew

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Drew:
First of all my comments were not directed to you personally in the previous posting or this one. It is directed to those who are questioning the accomplishments of our heros.
What gives Gamble or Ford the right to denigrate the accomplishments of the men of VMF214 and the AVG. What arrogance. Have these two men accomplished so much in military aviation, that qualifies them to critize the efforts of those men who went out in harm's way. I don't see either of these men names, on any aces list, in any war!
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Hey i was just curious where Mick's "Official" score was written...logged etc.

[Lufbery]

Drew:
First of all my comments were not directed to you personally in the previous posting or this one. It is directed to those who are questioning the accomplishments of our heroes.

That's cool. I'm surprised that I'm so touchy. It must be time to head home from work.

What gives Gamble or Ford the right to denigrate the accomplishments of the men of VMF214 and the AVG. What arrogance. Have these two men accomplished so much in military aviation, that qualifies them to criticize the efforts of those men who went out in harm's way. I don't see either of these men names, on any aces list, in any war!
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan-San,

I honestly don't think that either Gamble or Ford have done anything to denigrate the accomplishments of VMF-214 or the AVG. In fact, both of them have a profound respect for the topics of their books. I've met Bruce and corresponded with Dan. Both men have the respect of many of the men they've written about.

Oh well. I guess in this we disagree. Again, I apologize if my previous post was a bit touchy.

Warm regards,

[Vin]

Lufbery

“I would never accuse pilots of artificially inflating their claims. I would never accuse a pilot of being a liar.”

I am curious. Is that because

1. you don’t have enough information to be able to make an assessment of whether the pilot is inflating his score or lying.

2. you do not believe that a pilot would be so dishonourable as to stoop to these practices.

3. you respect these young men so much that you believe that it would be dishonourable of you to accuse them ?


Vin

Dear Drubery,
Well, I WOULD accuse pilots of intentionally inflating their scores. Barker did it, if I remember correctly, on two occaisions. But here's the kicker-- he did so in letters home to his family! Of course, this is not his official score, but why would he do such a thing? I've wondered about it, and I'm thinking that perhaps he MAY have given a victory or two away (this, BTW, is MY opinion, and not Wayne Ralph's; I refer to, of course, his fine book [also panned by C&C], BARKER VC). This will be the subject of a thread that I'm planning, soon after the 'Petticoat Junction' thread that I promised you... that's how small and empty my life has become...

Dear Albert,
You should be in politics! First you say that we should respect the official scores by judging them by the standards of their times, and then you proceed to give us EVR's score as 'adjusted' by a later-day methodology! Please don't misconstrue me-- I'D VOTE FOR YOU!!! That's because we live in a democracy, of sorts, and no matter how small and empty one's life may be...
But as to EVR's score, on TWO occaisions he has gotten confirmation for targets ON THE GROUND: #17 for a balloon (captive? 'confirmed' because ground observers saw a "glow" that matched EVR's account?) and #23 for a Fokker (was this the one where he tried to have it land intact, but a Frenchman dove in and did the Fokker in?).
The point that I'm making is not that EVR scored Two. Five. or scored Two. Six., but that nothing is ever that clean cut-- we should always take into account, with a pinch of scepticism thrown in, that facts are not always manifestly clear, that 'truth will out' in its own sweet time, that nothing is written in stone, and that history should be flexible and open to revision...

Dear Dan-San,
I would hope that my posts on this thread have, if anything, reaffirmed EVR's place in the Pantheon; I would hope that just as the facts have strengthened his veracity for me, that they have done the same for other Forumites. The more that I look into the man's record, the more I respect EVR; the more that I look into the man, the more I thank God for such men.

Dear Vin,
I hope that you've enjoyed this post as much as I've enjoyed your support. It really means a lot to me, for mine is a small and empty existence...

[Droops]

The mood of this thread is beginning to resemble a dank and thick fog. . . .

[Billy_Bishop]

Hey i was just curious where Mick's "Official" score was written...logged etc.

Me too!! But so far, NO ONE seems to know!!! The only "OFFICIAL" posting of a "score" for Mick that I know of was the listing in the London Gazette, when his VC was "Gazetted" in 1919. THAT gave a score of 50.

NOW, before ANYONE jumps on me, I'm NOT SAYING that 50 is his top score. ALL I'M SAYING is that is what I know for sure was OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED. All other listings of "73" were as lists published in books written by self-styled historians, like Arch Whitehouse.

THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING!!!!

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

Dear Albert,
*You should be in politics! First you say that we should respect the official scores by judging them by the standards of their times, and then you proceed to give us EVR's score as 'adjusted' by a later-day methodology! Please don't misconstrue me-- I'D VOTE FOR YOU!!! That's because we live in a democracy, of sorts, and no matter how small and empty one's life may be...
But as to EVR's score, on TWO occaisions he has gotten confirmation for targets ON THE GROUND: #17 for a balloon (captive? 'confirmed' because ground observers saw a "glow" that matched EVR's account?) and #23 for a Fokker (was this the one where he tried to have it land intact, but a Frenchman dove in and did the Fokker in?).
*The point that I'm making is not that EVR scored Two. Five. or scored Two. Six., but that nothing is ever that clean cut-- we should always take into account, with a pinch of scepticism thrown in, that facts are not always manifestly clear, that 'truth will out' in its own sweet time, that nothing is written in stone, and that history should be flexible and open to revision...

Me thinks you missed what I was saying. I, in NO WAY, shape or FORM expressed an opinion that EVR's WWI score should be changed. ALL I did was bring attention to USAFHS #133 which did an "evaluation" of victory claims, and looked at their REAL DESTRUCTIVENESS, rather than their victory credit counting. AND as I pointed out, the USAF Historical Research Agency STILL has EVR listed with 26 Victory Credits!!!

In fact, if you read their introduction to WWI victory credits, you'll see the following as part of it.

Air Force historians who prepared Historical Study 133 in 1969 converted the whole credits awarded those who contributed to a victory into fractions to show which credits were shared and to calculate the number of enemy aircraft actually covered by the credits. This was more in line with the British system and with the criteria the Americans applied in World War II, but it did not reflect the actual credits awarded. ---Confusion resulted, because researchers using Historical Study 133 would sometimes add the fractions of flyers to get their aerial victory credit totals.--- This current list shows the credits earned by Air Service members according to the World War I criteria. The reader should not attempt to determine the actual number of enemy aircraft brought down by Air Service pilots by adding up the numbers of aerial victory credits earned, because several whole credits were sometimes awarded for the destruction of a single enemy airplane.

I added the --- at the beginning and end of a section to draw attention to it.

As to what I said, look again.

In this instance, EVR has 24.33 by modern standards. BUT, and I have to emphasize this, the MODERN credits in no way change his WWI score of 26 victories. He was credited in WWI with 26 because that was the way it was done back then, and AFAIK, the USAF has not decided to change his official score in anyway.

In the above, I said "by modern standards." And then I said "the MODERN credits in no way change his WWI score of 26 victories. He was credited in WWI with 26 because that was the way it was done back then, and AFAIK, the USAF has not decided to change his official score in anyway."

I was not, I REPEAT, I WAS NOT ADVOCATING Changing the WWI scores based on other or newer crediting methods!!

In fact, I invite EVERYONE to go to the AFHRA website and see how Victory Crediting techniques have changed with each conflict. In Vietnam, for instance, it was possible AGAIN for up to 4 people to get 1 Credit each out of ONE enemy airplane!!!

Ok, I'm done now.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Oh, the URL for the Air Force Historical Research Agency is http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/