Al Lowe:
I agree that a few wrecked German aircraft with fewer than 50 bullet holes in them would go a long way toward establishing Bishop's combat marksmanship. The issue is not how straight he could shoot, but whether the airplanes at which he shot actually fell to the earth or not.
I have no idea in what condition his confirmed victims were actually found to be. But if any pilot other than Bishop had signed these CITARs, suggesting that 20 or thirty rounds into an opponent who then 'fell out of control' equates with a confirmed victory, they would not have been given a second glance. And the same people who would prefer not to give credit to anyone for the death of
Albert Ball should reconsider Bishop's confirmed victories for the two Pfalz fighters who collided with one another before he fired even one shot at them. In that instance apparently being present to witness the event was the sole criterion for awarding the victories.
Much of the discussion here about the personal virtues or vices of Bishop sounds all too familiar to an American who endured the Clinton impeachment. In each case some folks have their minds made up to like (or dislike) the man regardless of his personal merits or demerits.
I have no interest in Bishop as an individual, and no desire to undermine a Canadian institution. I would never dream of suggesting that he lied in his combat reports. Instead I see his career as a commentary on the political aspects of British military aviation, rather than proof of his personal character.
Nobody compelled Bishop's superiors to credit these reports as victories. If the unconfirmed reports had remained simply reports, the man would obviously be just as competent, brave, and daring, but his reputation would also not be tarnished. It was not his personal fault that his combats resulted in so many questionable confirmations. He had no control over the confirmation process, once he filed the CITARs. But clearly some of his superiors treated his reports very differently than they treated objectively similar reports filed by other pilots. And some people today are blaming Bishop for the way those reports were treated, in a way that they would not treat any other pilot who filed identical reports that justifiably resulted in no confirmed victory.
When the rookie pilot
Frank Luke filed his first combat reports that read at all like some of Bishop's, his squadron mates took offense and questioned his veracity. Apparently some of Bishop's associates did likewise, but his superiors clearly did not. In a rookie pilot I would ascribe such reports to youthful exuberance and undue optimism, not dishonesty. In Bishop's case the fact that his early reports resulted in confirmed victories undoubtedly reduced the pressure to report his results more conservatively. In Luke's case the hostility of his compatriots and the lack of confirmation made him take too many risks. The differences are probably due more to the way others reacted to these pilots, than to differences in their personal character. If Bishop's VC mission had resulted in derision and scorn rather than a medal, he might have lived just as spectacularly short a life as Frank Luke.