Authenticity of Combat Reports

[Rich Field Flyer]

I am trying to determine the authenticity of three combat reports. One is a Ray Collishaw (203 Squadron) report of July 22, 1918. Another is a Lloyd Andrews Hamilton (17th Aero Squadron) report of August 21, 1918. The third is a Howard Burdick (17th Aero Squadron) report of October 25, 1918.

I have some concerns about authenticity based upon their condition and content. I have attached the signature portion of the Burdick report. I have scans of all three reports in their entirety, but they are too large to post on the forum. If anyone can help authenticate these reports I would like to send you the scans by email and get your opinion. I appreciate any help that might be provided.

Rich Field Flyer

Rich Field Flyer sent me views of the reports which can be viewed by clicking on the links below. There are a couple more views of details of the signatures and such. I can post those too if anyone likes. (Moving your cursor to the bottom right hand corner and leaving it there for a second will bring up a feature that will allow you to make a fairly good blow up of the reports.)

Matt


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...--Hamilton.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...t--Goodnow.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...--Colishaw.jpg

[Rich Field Flyer]

Thanks, Matt, for helping me out. I have not yet mastered the art of posting images to the forum.

I have scanned as a pdf file the combat report I have already purchased from the same dealer. This one is Robert Todd (17th Aero Squadron) and is dated August 22, 1918. It was too long to get into one image and so the second scan shows the bootom of the report.

A few things raise suspicion about these reports, but I am far from an expert.

First, all four appear to be signed in the same ink, though one is from a different squadron and they span a four month time period.

Second, there is a difference between the Hamilton report for this action and the version of it published in Robert Todd's book, Sopwith Camel Fighter Ace, at page 85: Todd shows the "Height" part of the form to be 12000-4000 feet and this report shows it to be 12000-1000 feet. Todd reports that the narrative portion says: "While on O.P. cooperating with No. 6 Squadron we saw nine Fokker biplanes in the distance and headed for them. Some dove away and I followed one. He banked around and as I opened fire on him he dove away. I got on his tail and from a distance of 10-20 yards fired 350 rounds into him during which time he did not turn. At 5000 feet he began to smoke and I pulled away from him at 4000 feet." This report has an extra sentence, and differs somewhat.

Third, all four reports are typed with what appears to be the same typewriter on the same R.E. printed form. Perhaps this can be explained because the 17th Aero Squadron was attached to an RAF wing. I don't know if 203 Squadron and the 17th Aero were in the same wing at the same aerodrome. Maybe someone can help here. I do know that the 17th Aero was flying out of Auxi-le-Chateau in August of 1918.

I appreciate any help that might be given.

Rich Field Flyer

Hi,

I bought some reports from the same source as you. The dealer has a mixed reputation in the collecting community. I am pretty satisifed that the ones I got were orignal, content, style, inks etc. While one report is pretty spectacular, one is really sort of mundane, details getting shot up by light flak and gliding home across the lines - not the sort of saga to go to the trouble of faking and then sell for $50 bucks. My only small concern is that black ink was more commonly used in that era, but blue was not uncommon either.

Official accounts were modified as they moved up the line for approval, these are'claims' not official sanction, claims were often denied, HQ clerks made typos in transcription. I got a report for one fellow whose claim was denied. So it is really hard to say at first glance.

BUT, I'd be happy to talk in more detail with you off the board about them as there is too much to address in this venue. feel free to e-mail me scottmarchand@hotmail.com

Also, here is a link to one Norm Flayderman has for sale at 295$, I actually suspect our friend in the UK may have got his batch from Norm. A number of dealers I know of have been able to get residual items from Norm at hugely cheap prices and then mark them up astronomically - viz. our friend in Snata Monica...

Norm collected these things back when there was little interest and many fewer collectors, so this is a good comparative form:
http://www.aerobuff.com/bg347.JPG

The more I look at these, the more suspicious I become. I am no expert on documents, but I don't think these are original. There are lots of small worrisome points which are not disqualifying in and of themselves. They are things that are unusual, but which are sometimes seen in period documents even so. I would not expect to see so many of these in one document, however. More important is my concern about the form itself and my belief that one man typed all three of these reports. I would be very interested in hearing if these units were colocated or how the same man would end up typing all three reports. I would also be interested in knowing why he changed some stylistic points for no obvious reason (other than to make one report look "more American" and the other "more British"). I know this would be a disappointment to Rich Field (assuming I am right), but as the proud owner of at least a couple forged German badges, and perhaps an American pilots wing as well, I can certainly sympathize. I hesitate to say more in hopes that there is someone out there who really is an expert on documents who can look at these without my having already muddied the water for him. I'm also not too keen on alerting a forger as to the obvious (and correctable) errors in his efforts. On the other hand, if anyone would like the particulars of my reasoning, I will be happy to respond. Part of the reason for this forum is to protect and educate each other, and part of that includes helping to learn how to identify the scams in our hobby. I'm just hoping someone who knows this stuff will step up and give us the real expert's viewpoint as opposed to me giving my imitation of an expert.

Matt

[charles]

I tend to think your 22 July 1918 Collishaw is not correct. Below is The Aero Conservancy's 31 May 1918 C.I.T.A.R.

Your report is missing the Army Form W.3348 and other print on the very upper edge of the paper. What makes me think this is a little odd is that your report is missing the very upper edge, itself. In other words, the space between "Combats in The Air." and the top edge of your report is pretty thin. Of course, perhaps they ran out of forms and had a local printer print them up...not very likely, but who knows.

If you want to be absolutely sure of your report, you could either visit the National Archives outside London (the former P.R.O. in Kew) or hire a researcher to do this for you or ask someone on the Cross & Cockade list serv if they could take a look for you. Someone is always going to the National Archives.

Anyway, the National Archives has 203's record book and their originbal Combat Reports. You could look up this engagement in the record book to see if it occured. If it did, then order up the file of Combat Reports and look through them yourself and see if the engagement for 22 July 1918 is there or not. If it's not there, then see if yours looks like the forms closest to it, from the engagement before and after yours.

It is sad how the reports are all falling apart in the files. The paper is very brittle after all these years. They should be scanned and then the originals tucked away.

The 31 May 1918 report is actually available here on The Aerodrome somewhere. The people who run this site use it to illustrate how claims are recorded, I think, or perhaps you can see it if you look up Ron Sykes, I think it links right from his page.

Anyway, would be delighted for you to visit us online at The Aero Conservancy. We have an R.N.A.S. C.I.T.A.R., as well, and they are pretty rare.

Charley

[Graeme]

I have a copy of Collishaw's combat report dated 22 July 1918 in front of me (obtained from the PRO in the late 1980s). As Charles points out, "Army Form W. 3348" appears in the upper right corner; immediately beneath are the entries "C.R. 223/18." and "C.R. 224/18". I've tried scanning the document but the copy is quite dark and the scanned article is barely legible. I'll have a go at changing scan resolutions etc and if I can get a decent image I'll post it on the Forum.

I have copies of all (I think) of Collishaw's reports for June and July 1917 (10 Squadron RNAS) and these were produced on the same Army Form.

Graeme

Graeme, have you had any luck with your report? It would really be helpful if we could see what you have for Collishaw from the PRO. One of the concerns I had is apparently not entirely valid as it has shown up as well in Charles' (the Conservancy's) CITAR, but otherwise the Conservancy's follows true to form. It really would be very helpful to see what was being used in Collishaw's unit regarding these forms. Once I see that, if you can get it on here, I will explain why I think Rich's CITAR is a fake. If you can't get it on here, could you e mail it to me as an attachment? I can post it here through photobucket if you can get a decent copy to me by email.

Matt

[ehrenpries]

Dont worry if the 'Army form 3348' is missing......it is quite common for reports to have been trimmed of their rough edges...(sometimes dramatically !!) .....so that the item looks more presentable ( and sellable).!

"More mulled wine please nurse, before dawn patrol.!"

Ehrenpries