The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

Wayne Ralph · 1 May 2002, 08:48 PM

Dear Ron, Miles, and Al,

I won't belabour my scepticism much further.

Let me just conclude by saying that during my researches over six years I learned that the standard required to get a "destroyed" claim is higher than "driven down out of control"

"Destroyed" means what it says - the aircraft has to catch fire, break up in the air, or be seen on the ground in pieces, or some combination of these events.

However, a study of losses on the Western Front will show that approximately one out of five victories results in the destruction of the aircraft and/or the death of the pilot, or pilot and observer. Hence most victories are not "kills" despite the widespread use of this chilling phrase by authors.

This essential point was made to me by the late Ronald V. Dodds, who was a DHist historian at DND, and a contributing author to Canadian Airmen and the First World War - the first volume of the RCAF official history. He was also the biographer for

Raymond Collishaw, and author of The Brave Young Wings.

It takes much greater skill to destroy an aircraft in combat than simply force it to break away and dive earthward. It also requires a higher standard of evidence if the phrase "destroyed" is to have any meaning in the text of a combat report.

To have combat reports citing 24 destroyed machines without witnesses either in the air or on the ground, and to find no casualty figures or losses of aircraft that can even come close to matching that number for the period in question has to make any reasonably proficient investigator pause for reflection.

Is it necessary to accept without question such claims just so the dramatic legend can be perpetuated? Surely there is some middle ground here between paragon and cheat?

1 May 2002, 08:48 PM	#109 (permalink)
Wayne Ralph Observer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Unit 102, 15050 Prospect Avenue, White Rock, BC, V4B 2B4 Posts: 65	Dear Ron, Miles, and Al, I won't belabour my scepticism much further. Let me just conclude by saying that during my researches over six years I learned that the standard required to get a "destroyed" claim is higher than "driven down out of control" "Destroyed" means what it says - the aircraft has to catch fire, break up in the air, or be seen on the ground in pieces, or some combination of these events. However, a study of losses on the Western Front will show that approximately one out of five victories results in the destruction of the aircraft and/or the death of the pilot, or pilot and observer. Hence most victories are not "kills" despite the widespread use of this chilling phrase by authors. This essential point was made to me by the late Ronald V. Dodds, who was a DHist historian at DND, and a contributing author to Canadian Airmen and the First World War - the first volume of the RCAF official history. He was also the biographer for Raymond Collishaw, and author of The Brave Young Wings. It takes much greater skill to destroy an aircraft in combat than simply force it to break away and dive earthward. It also requires a higher standard of evidence if the phrase "destroyed" is to have any meaning in the text of a combat report. To have combat reports citing 24 destroyed machines without witnesses either in the air or on the ground, and to find no casualty figures or losses of aircraft that can even come close to matching that number for the period in question has to make any reasonably proficient investigator pause for reflection. Is it necessary to accept without question such claims just so the dramatic legend can be perpetuated? Surely there is some middle ground here between paragon and cheat?