Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme
Steve
Put politely, the account of Jerrard's action is at variance with Austro-Hungarian sources. The RFC pilots claimed six enemy aircraft as crashed but the Austrians suffered only one machine damaged and one pilot wounded.
Graeme
|
Graeme,
Err..."Put politely"....does that mean there is doubt on the veracity of the story? Lack of corroboration from the enemy is a problem. Were THEY lying to "save face"? Were his wingmen lying to say they saw a particular aircraft crash because he covered their backsides on the return flight home? Did they say he did these things thinking that he had perished in that action?
Of course, there are too many instances of "going down out of control" that were awarded a "victory" when in fact the pilot was shamming lack of control, or limped home, or whatever and actually survived the combat. Sometimes you can't watch the fate of your "victim", but at 50 feet, the story is probably a lot different. If you put a burst into your opponent at 10,000 feet, you can't watch him go all the way to the ground unless he's the last or alone. But at 50 feet, put a burst in, and he's down immediately.
Now, of course, you might put some lead in him, and see him pancake reasonably hard and be satisfied that aircraft is no longer a danger to you, and forget about it, but in reality, it might have suffered only minor undercarriage damage. In the mind of an attacking pilot and his wingmen, it's a victory, crashed on his own aerodrome. In the mind of the occupants of the aerodrome, it's minor damage. The pilot MAY have even been able to run to a spare aircraft and take off again in pursuit.
So it seems his first alleged victory, shot down in flames, which he followed down to 100 feet...that to me is a victory. An aeroplane in flames is a "goner". If it was directly over the aerodrome, and caught fire at 50 feet or so, and was landed IMMEDIATELY and a fire tender was there IMMEDIATELY, the aircraft is a still a write-off. By the time it gets down, and the tender gets there, and they begin to fight the fire, then succeed in putting it out...mate, that plane isn't ever going to fly again (the engine might be salvaged, or the ailerons, or the rudder...but it's a write off and a victory).
It seems as if the second phase of the citation where he attacked a number of machines taking off or landing could be where an error might creep in, given that the attacked aircraft are very close to the ground. They MAY have pancaked, and suffered relatively minor damage, causing the attacking pilots to claim a victory, whilst the enemy deny that particular aircraft was "destroyed".
In the third phase of the citation, it describes how he attacked an aircraft that was on his wingman's tail, and that he shot that one down. That, to me, sounds like another victory in that there must have been corroborating evidence from the pilot who was being attacked, and the pilot who removed the enemy from his tail (though he didn't return to base).
There are always instances of disagreement in what actually happened, but it seems to me that Lt Jerrard scored a POSSIBLE two victories in this sortie, possibly more, but the Austro-Hungarians denied they lost that many aircraft. It was not stated where the first action (the flamer) occurred. Perhaps this was a German aircraft some distance from the aerodrome that was attacked, perhaps belonging to another AH aerodrome.
Put it down to the "fog of war". But it surely seems to me as if the VC was deserved. At lease he had witnesses, whereas a similar "exploit" by B. Bishop was not.