Victoria Cross Citations

[stevedrew]

Copied withoput alteration from the London Gazette Third Supplement, Tuesday 30th April 1918:

Victoria Cross Citations:

"Lt Alan Jerrard, Royal Air Force (formerly of the South Staffordshire Regiment).

When on an offensive patrol with two other officers he attacked five enemy aeroplanes and shot one down in flames, following it down to within one hundred feet of the ground.

He then attacked an enemy aerodrome from a height of only fifty feet from the ground, and, engaging single-handed some nineteen machines, which were either landing or attempting to take off, succeeded in destroying one of them, which crashed on the aerodrome. A large number of machines then attacked him, and whilst thus fully occupied he observed that one of the pilots of his patrol was in difficulties. He went immediately to his assistance, regardless of his own personal safety, and destroyed a third enemy machine.

Fresh enemy aeroplanes continued to rise from the aerodrome, which he attacked one after another, and only retreated, still engaged with five enemy machines, when ordered to do so by his patrol leader. Although apparently wounded, this very gallant officer turned repeatedly, and attacked single-handed the pursuing machines, until he was eventually overwhelmed by numbers and driven to the ground.

Lt Jerrard had greatly distinguished himself on four previous occasions, within a period of twenty-three days, in destroying enemy machines, displaying bravery and ability of the very highest order."

Eat your heart out Billy Bishop!

What about THIS one...

"2nd Lieutenant Alan Arnett McLeod, Royal Air Force.

Whilst flying with his observer (Lt. A. W. Hammond, M.C.), attacking hostile formations by bombs and machine-gun fire, he was assailed at a height of 5,000 feet by eight enemy triplanes, which dived at him from all directions, firing from their front guns. By skilful manoeuvring he enabled his observer to fire bursts at each machine in turn, shooting three of them down out of control. By this time, Lt. McLeod had received five wounds, and whilst continuing the engagement a bullet penetrated his petrol tank and set the machine on fire.

He then climbed out onto the left bottom plane, controlling his machine from the side of the fuselage, and by side-slipping steeply kept the flames to one side, thus enabling the observer to continue firing until the ground was reached.

The observer had been wounded six times when the machine crashed in "No Man's Land", and 2nd Lt McLeod, notwithstanding his own wounds, dragged him away from the burning wreckage at great personal risk from heavy machine-gun fire from the enemy's lines. This very gallant pilot was again wounded by a bomb whilst engaged in this act of rescue, but he persevered until he had placed Lt. Hammond in comparative safety, before falling himself from exhaustion and loss of blood."

Astounding courage and doggedness.

I dare say both those chaps deserved their awards.

[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.

McLeod received his VC at Buckingham Palace on 4 September 1918 and returned to Canada to continue his recuperation. Unfortunately he fell prey to Spanish Influenza and died on 6 November 1918.

And how about Freddie West:

Air Ministry,
8th November, 1918.

His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of the Victoria Cross to Lieut. (actg. Capt.) Ferdinand Maurice Felix West, M.C., Royal Air Force (formerly of the Special Reserve, Royal Munster Fusiliers), in recognition of his outstanding bravery in aerial combat.

Captain West, while engaging hostile troops at a low altitude far over the enemy lines, was attacked by seven aircraft. Early in the engagement one of his legs was partially severed by an explosive bullet, and fell powerless into the controls, rendering the machine for the time unmanageable. Lifting his disabled leg, he regained control of the machine, and, although wounded in the other leg, he, with surpassing bravery and devotion to duty, manoeuvred his machine so skilfully that his observer was enabled to get several good bursts into the enemy machines, which drove them away. Captain West then, with rare courage, and determination, desperately wounded as he was, brought his machine over our lines and landed safely. Exhausted by his exertions, he fainted, but on regaining consciousness insisted on writing his report.

(The award of the Military Cross was gazetted on 26th July, 1918.)

Air Commodore West VC CBE MC died on 8 July 1988, aged 92.

Graeme

[stevedrew]

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.

[Graeme]

Hi Steve

That fog of war must have been a right pea-souper!

All six claimed victories were in the vicinity of Mansue aerodrome within a period of 11 minutes; these were claimed as one each for Carpenter, Eycott-Martin and Jerrard at 11:40, two more by Jerrard at 11:45 and 11:50 and the last by Eycott-Martin at 11:51.

Jerrard himself claimed only to have shot up one enemy aeroplane and as far as I know remained silent about the exact events until his death in May 1968.

The evidence provided for the VC recommendation was Carpenter's hand-written report, headed "Original Evidence":

Whlie leading a patrol composed of Lt Jerrard and Lt Martin, I attacked 1 Rumpler 2 seater, escorted by 4 x DIII scouts, which were attempting to cross our lines, evidently on a photographic reconnaissance at Fontna.

Thet were 14,000 feet high, we were 12,000 feet but we chased them back to the Mansue group of aerodromes, when I observed them losing height preparatory to landing.

I got to close quarters with 2 DIIIs, shooting one down while Lt Jerrard shot the other one into flames, after following it to 100 ft of the ground. While attacking other machines I lost Lt Jerrard for a moment, but on looking down, observed him flying up & down the enemy aerodrome at about 50 ft from the ground, shooting up the Aerodrome & attacking machines landing & taking off [appended is the comment "one of which he destroyed"]. At this time I was at 6000 ft over the aerodrome with Lt Martin. I then saw Lt Jerrard putting up a terrific fight with 6 DIIIs who were trying to get away in the South Corner of the Aerodrome. We went down to his assistance & immediately became hotly engaged. Lt Jerrard, who had a DIII helpless, & who was at the same time being fiercely attacked, turned away to rush to Lt Martin's assistance & succeeded in shooting an EA off Lt Martin's tail, which was seen to crash.

Lt Jerrard now turned into the other EA to again attack, & we now all got split up, the air was now thick with enemy machines, all the fighting taking place practically in the centre of the Aerodrome. Without hesitation, Lt Jerrard attacked the Huns in all directions, engaging one after another he still being about 50 ft up. I now dived to his assistance in the hope of getting him back & managed to get him to the edge of the Aerodrome. He was at this time fighting weakly & knowing his capabilities as a Pilot, I think he was wounded. At this time he was engaged with five Huns, while others were rushing up from the Aerodrome to join in the attack on him. Lt Jerrard however continued to attack the Huns despite numbers. Once more he joined me & started off home, fighting all the way, but he again turned round into the Huns & attacked again. He again & again turned round & attacked the Huns himself & in this last attack I lost him. On circling round I found that at last he had been driven down by superior numbers in a field about F 53 & eight Hun machines were circling round the spot he had crashed.

I'm not prepared to say who, if anyone, lied or stretched the truth but will leave it as another incident where one side's version of events is at odds with the other's.... keeping head well below parapet

Graeme

[stevedrew]

It must have been pretty difficult for the HQ "boffins" that had to ascertain the facts of these sorties for the purpose of awards and decorations etc, especially considering how difficult it is even now.

Sure, time has passed and memories faded, and another war intervened and possibly destroyed records of the previous conflict. You would think that after everyone had kissed and made up, then sat down to write what had happened, with both sides having access to their records, that you might be reasonably expected to get a close approximation of what really did happen.

Fog of war IS pretty much a pea-souper. The day after, or one hundred years later. Thanks for all the extra information.