The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

Wayne Ralph · 1 May 2002, 11:00 AM

Dear SFABERT, and Others,

You have touched on what is arguably the weakest part of

Billy Bishop's military record - his abbreviated operational tour in 1918.

I have always felt that his credibility at that period raises more doubts than anything he may or may not have accomplished on June 2nd, 1917.

Air war historians should recall that the RFC and RAF policy was that SQUADRON COMMANDERS SHALL NOT FLY ON OPERATIONAL MISSIONS. OPS ARE TO BE LED BY THE FLIGHT COMMANDERS OF THE SQUADRON. THE SQUADRON COMMANDER HAS IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RELATIONS RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THOSE SKILLS ARE TOO VALUABLE TO RISK LOSING ON PATROL.

Now, this policy was by no means universally enforced and there are many examples of squadron commanders flying on operations. However, there are abundant cases where squadron commanders did no flying. The official policy of Brigade and Wing Headquarters on the Western Front was that good commanding officers were too scarce to be risked.

Bishop's intense motivation to raise his victory score, to the exclusion of all other responsibilities, would not have comforted Brigade and Wing HQ in May-June 1918.

The birth of the CAF in England may have given the RAF a convenient pretext to post Bishop back to Home Establishment before it became necessary to remove him from command. It is unlikely that any of this was documented.

A couple of telephone calls from the OMFC commander to the RAF commander was all it would have taken to have Bishop moved aside and replaced by Mannock. The RAF breathes a sigh of relief, and the nascent CAF gets a figurehead, quickly promoted by the OMFC commander-in-chief to lieutenant colonel.

The most significant doubt I hold about Bishop is how he was able to have such a large total of victories in 1918 in so brief a period, without so much as a scratch, never mind a schrapnel or gunshot wound?? That intensity of air combat over many days will put any ace, no matter how accomplished, at risk. Combat fatigue leads to mistakes, and nobody flies that intensely without fatigue.

Bishop's ratio of destroyed victories to driven down out of control in 1918 is questionable. It far exceeds what any other of the top aces approached at that stage of the war, or any earlier stage, for that matter. All accomplished without personal injury or significant damage to his SE5a.

Amazing, yes. Perhaps a bit too amazing....

1 May 2002, 11:00 AM	#101 (permalink)
Wayne Ralph Observer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Unit 102, 15050 Prospect Avenue, White Rock, BC, V4B 2B4 Posts: 58	Dear SFABERT, and Others, You have touched on what is arguably the weakest part of Billy Bishop's military record - his abbreviated operational tour in 1918. I have always felt that his credibility at that period raises more doubts than anything he may or may not have accomplished on June 2nd, 1917. Air war historians should recall that the RFC and RAF policy was that SQUADRON COMMANDERS SHALL NOT FLY ON OPERATIONAL MISSIONS. OPS ARE TO BE LED BY THE FLIGHT COMMANDERS OF THE SQUADRON. THE SQUADRON COMMANDER HAS IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RELATIONS RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THOSE SKILLS ARE TOO VALUABLE TO RISK LOSING ON PATROL. Now, this policy was by no means universally enforced and there are many examples of squadron commanders flying on operations. However, there are abundant cases where squadron commanders did no flying. The official policy of Brigade and Wing Headquarters on the Western Front was that good commanding officers were too scarce to be risked. Bishop's intense motivation to raise his victory score, to the exclusion of all other responsibilities, would not have comforted Brigade and Wing HQ in May-June 1918. The birth of the CAF in England may have given the RAF a convenient pretext to post Bishop back to Home Establishment before it became necessary to remove him from command. It is unlikely that any of this was documented. A couple of telephone calls from the OMFC commander to the RAF commander was all it would have taken to have Bishop moved aside and replaced by Mannock. The RAF breathes a sigh of relief, and the nascent CAF gets a figurehead, quickly promoted by the OMFC commander-in-chief to lieutenant colonel. The most significant doubt I hold about Bishop is how he was able to have such a large total of victories in 1918 in so brief a period, without so much as a scratch, never mind a schrapnel or gunshot wound?? That intensity of air combat over many days will put any ace, no matter how accomplished, at risk. Combat fatigue leads to mistakes, and nobody flies that intensely without fatigue. Bishop's ratio of destroyed victories to driven down out of control in 1918 is questionable. It far exceeds what any other of the top aces approached at that stage of the war, or any earlier stage, for that matter. All accomplished without personal injury or significant damage to his SE5a. Amazing, yes. Perhaps a bit too amazing....