|
Hi Mike
"Red Herring"
Do you suggest that the persons who earlier on this Forum cites combat reports from 23 sq RFC which show that the unit was fighting German Albatrosses in the right area and time are using falsified material...?
For me it only proofs what the reports from 1 N sq shows, i.e. they were in the right area and time and were probably fighting German a/c....and possible met a/c from Jasta 11...
Quote:
"I just think that a pilot of Lothar's experience would have reported being in combat with an unidentified biplane if he didn't know what an SE5 was"
Here I will cite an answer I made in an earlier thread about this incident:
-Around this time it was a Triplane mania regarding what the German reported..for example on 10 May 1917 four different Naval units(Köster,Moere,Bamburg and Grossherzog) all reported that they shot down a Triplane...!
It was however a Sopwith-Pup from 4 N sq.....-
If the Germans had used the "French metod" and only reported Balls a/c as an e/a, we would not have part of this discussion...or...?
So here I cómpletely agree with Wulffo that possible correct identifying of enemy aircraft in hot combats was rare or luck.... The fact that the British had lots of more different fighters then the French, also made it difficult for the German....It is also possible that the a/c from Jasta 11 were involved with at least three different e/a (see above) within a very limited time....
Gunnar
|