Luke's Wound(s): A New Myth is Born?

Let me begin by citing Dan-San, who warned us Forumites against accepting automatically as true anything that comes to us from Grub Street; and I would be more than obliged if Stephen Skinner would graciously comment upon the points I make below; I begin with two quotes from two books...

This first is from Norman Franks’ WHO DOWNED THE ACES IN WW1?:
“His Spad was hit by ground fire from Leutnant Mangel’s BZ35 defence unit and he was wounded in the chest. He tried to reach the front lines but was forced down in a field outside of the village of Murvaux. He had come down 50 yards from a small stream. Climbing out of his machine, he tried to crawl to the water, it must be assumed to drink, as the type of wound he received induces a raging thirst...”

The second is from BLOODY APRIL... BLACK SEPTEMBER (by Russell Guest with Norman Franks and Frank Bailey):
“... [Luke] was hit by the defences of Leutnant Mangel’s BZ35, suffering a chest wound. He then headed for the small village of Murvaux, passing over it, heading east, circled, and turned back west, landing in near darkness on a slope west of the village, just 50 yards from a creek.
“He got our of his Spad and started to crawl towards the stream in order, in must be assumed, to drink, as his type of wound induces a raging thirst...”

This description of the wound’s effect is inaccurate and nothing short of nonsense. I repeat--NONSENSE!

I verified this with my sister, a nurse of many years, as well as a sargeant-major in the US Army Reserve; besides, almost any American Civil War buff worth his (or her) salt would immediately spot the innaccuracy of the above statements (this is because so many wounds in that conflict were in the stomach and intestinal tract). To wit:

A stomach wound does cause a “raging thirst”-- but time and again, we are told that Luke’s wound was to the chest or to the shoulder. The chest wound that Luke is supposed to have suffered is described in medical terms as a “sucking wound”, ie the air would be escaping from the injury to the pulmonary tract, the immediate danger being that his lung would collapse. As far as developing a thirst, raging or otherwise, the sargeant-major informed me (when he stopped smirking after I said “sucking wound”) this would be the result of severe blood loss (which my sister verified). I would be more concerned with Luke even attempting to exit his aeroplane, as his lung could collapse at any moment.

Another key point that I would like to raise: how are we so sure about Luke’s injury? Or should I say “injuries”, as something obviously killed Luke-- in the Murvaux affadavit, his chest wound is presented as “serious” and ultimately fatal, while the wound that forced him to land is not elaborated on. The Graves Registration report only makes mention of a shoulder wound that forced him to land; it wasn’t the fatal wound. The Red Cross report only states that Luke was “apparently wounded”-- again, no mention as to what wound or injury ended up killing Luke. How could anyone tell, when Luke’s body was exhumed, which wound forced him down and which wound actually killed him?

I will go even further-- in fact, I will go so far as to assert Luke was not wounded and that he landed because his SPAD’s engine was overheating; this is why he landed near a stream, in order to refill his radiator...

Then the German patrol arrived; now, tell me, knowing what we know of Luke’s temperment, do you honestly believe that he would have alerted those Germans, as Franks et al would have us believe?

You don’t agree? Fine-- knock this wing spar off my shoulder!

So, in future time, if I decide to commission the artist Russell Smith (aka "Aeroart" here at the good ol' Forum) to paint “Luke’s Last Stand”, my Frank Luke will be standing, unwounded, defiant, armed and very, very dangerous. The only speculation that I have presently is what will the dying rays of the setting sun be reflecting off of-- a revolver or a .45 automatic?*

Respectfully submitted,
Captain Lewis

*Graves Registration and the Red Cross say it was an automatic, while the Murvaux Affadavit claims it was a revolver...

Our own site right here claims that Luke was wounded in the shoulder and then duked it out with the Germans. It also has the Graves Registration Letter, American Red Cross Letter, and Murvaux Affidavit posted which all contradict each other to some degree. Perhaps Franks and Bailey took whichever one they thought more probable...don't know how to explain the "Thirst Factor." I would argue that landing next to a small stream may be purely coincidental and have nothing to do with him being thirsty or any other factor. If he was wounded or if his scout was damaged, then he'll put it down wherever he can, if he has to. Do they use any other evidence to corroborate the letters and affidavit? As for your theory, plausible, too.

Probably we'll never know. When you have 10 witnesses to an event, we should all know you will end up with 10 different stories. Add to that, the Red Cross letter and Murvaux affidavit are both dated to January of '19, enough time to lapse so witnesses could add to the story or forget significant details.

In the end, does it really matter? In the category of "If it isn't true, it should be," I think Luke shot it out with the Germans whether he was wounded or not...It seems the fitting end for him!


In the best style of Ginger (Colonial POV):

18 Luke-Huns 1

Need I say more? The Yank hero gave better than he got when some Kraut, not worthy to launder his underclothes, got lucky.
B)

[Barrett]

Cap'n L:
Until Stephen replies, I'll limit myself to the narrowest possible subject: .45 auto or revolver.
Year (and years) ago I met a couple of 27th PS enlisted men. They were fairly typical WW I vets--i.e., gregarious and windy--but one said he'd seen FL shooting TWO Colt 1911s from the hurricane deck of his motorcycle. It doesn't prove anything, but more than once I've seen Euro accounts citing revolvers when clearly auto was meant (Borchardt, Luger, etc)
Just FWIW

[stephen]

Capt and HD raise some excellent points. I'll try to distinguish between what I can say with absolute authority and what I surmise from the evidence I've found. Here goes:

1) We do know the nature of Luke's wounds, described generally, but reliably in the presence of several witnesses to his exhumation. One shot, through the chest. That is a certainty.

2) I surmise with reasonable certainty that he was hit while in the air, not on the ground. I also surmise, pending more information, that Luke was the only one firing on the ground. It is likely that Luke saw his targets from a distance and fired, but the Germans never actually saw him and may not have returned anything but scattered covering fire... possibly not even that. IOW, Capt, you better have your painting done with Luke wounded.

3) I surmise that Luke was not hit while approaching Murvaux from the west. He had already reached Murvaux, passed over the eastern edge of the village and was heading west again - likely to get his bearings and head home - when he was hit while making his 180 degree eastbound to westbound turn. He was not hit by elements of BZ35 under the balloon west of Murvaux and south of Lion... he was hit by elevated guns north of Murvaux on heights of the Cote St. Germain. I am sure of what I say here, but readily admit that this is a deduction rather than a certainty that I can prove.

4) The presence of the stream was strictly coincidental. It was the first quick place to land after receiving a mortal wound. Luke did not crawl to the stream because he was thirsty. I consider that theory ridiculous. He crawled there because it offered the only cover available in a heavily occupied area behind enemy lines. There were no trees along the Milly creek, nor along either ridge north or south of the village. I repeat, there were NO TREES or obstructions of view ANYWHERE from the edge of the village all the way to the western edge of the Cote St. Germain. I can say that with absolute certainty and proof. There were waist high weeds along the creek, and in some areas the weeds were even higher... that is all. Luke had not made any friends amongst the Germans in the previous five minutes and had no intention of sitting in his airplane to be shot again. He crawled to the only cover available anywhere within half a mile. This is a certainty.

5) The thought of Luke firing to get help is simply illogical. Shooting would not bring help... it would bring return fire. He certainly shot - and yes, that is a certainty - but not while hoping for medical assistance. He did so out of spite and courage.

6) My theory: Luke was dead within six minutes of being hit. I'm working on a more precise timetable but that is very, very close. It was a mortal wound with no chance of survival. He landed within fifteen seconds of being hit; the plane was stopped and he was crawling out of it in less than sixty. Can't prove that yet, but I'd bet my life savings on it. And win.

7) Throw away everything that has been written in the last forty years on Luke's final moments... I emphasize, FINAL MOMENTS. I've uncovered documentation in Belgium, France and the USA that none of those authors have touched. With that level of research, most references would have been better off not dealing with the topic at all rather than making some of the statements that have been made. Unlike most WWI research, the recent material is weak, incorrect, and based on partial assumptions from selected sources. Alan Durkota's MoH book reveals nothing new, but avoids some of the mistakes made by other authors. Again, throw away everything that's been written since the mid-50's on Luke's FINAL MOMENTS. Its dead wrong. The material before that was at least partially correct and based on authentic, original research.

[baldeagle]

The scene of the crime-- in June of this year. Looking about northeast, Murveaux is out of sight to the right. The stream runs across the middle of the picture, Luke landed on the far side, in the green field this side of the brown field. Guns were up on the ridge, right Steven?

[baldeagle]

And looking west over the rooftops of Murveaux, the brown field in the previous photo is just barely visible in the center of the picture.

[stephen]

Thanks for the photograph... that's a good one. Referring to the first photo:

1) Look at the line of trees running across the foreground of the picture. That is Milly Creek. There were no trees - at all - there at the time, only weeds. Now look at the brush and trees on the right... follow that line of trees to the left (west) until the shrubbery stops.... now keep going until you see one small shrub by itself along the creek. There are two small, isolated shrubs in the center of the photo along the creek - I am referring to the one on the right. If you look very closely just above that shrub, you will see a telephone pole in that photograph. It is barely discernable here, but look closely and you'll find it. Luke landed fifty yards to the left (west) of that pole, about the same distance from the creek as the pole itself.

Next, look about halfway up the hill in the distance, known locally as the Cote St Germain. You can easily see a line running above the village horizontally along the ridgeline. This is a small dirt road - a farming access road to service the fields to the west side (left) of the photo - and it was there in 1918. I have several captured German photos proving that it existed then. I've driven it many times; it runs north from the village and makes a left, westbound turn into the fields where it simply runs out. There are no higher roads on the Cote St Germain... this one goes as high as it gets. I am working on the exact location of the German AA guns on this hill. I believe that they were just above this road, approximately where the isolated groups of brush are in the center of the hill. I cannot prove any of that yet but I'm working on it.

Now look at the trees along the top of the hill. They were not there in 1918... not one of them. The entire hill was completely bare, as was the unseen ridge to the south of the village. That I can prove. Both hills had been heavily forested before the war, but had been cut clean by the French for firewood under forced labor by the Germans.

This photo was taken from the D102 that runs eastbound into the village. The village is half a mile to your right from where the photographer stood, and immediately to the left (west) is a curve in the D102 that goes around the base of the ridge that borders the south side of Murvaux, then disappears toward Milly 2 kilometers west. If you get to Milly and take a left (south), you'll be in Dun sur Meuse in about three minutes. Hope that helps. Now for the second photo...

[stephen]

This photo must have been taken from a position along the service road mentioned in my previous post. This is toward the end of that road... last time I drove this road it was very wet and muddy and I had to park and walk the rest of the way to the Luke landing site.

All of the rooftops that you see in this photo were original buildings dating to 1918. The only new houses in Murvaux are out of the picture to the right along the D102... the village has extended about a quarter mile to the west, but has not grown to the east at all. It is also bordered by high ridges to the north and south which prevent growth that direction as well.

On the right side of the photo you can see part of the distant ridge that borders the village to the south. That hilltop was also bare in Sept of 1918, and that is a certainty. I'll try to continue to distinguish between assumptions and absolutes. I do not believe that there were any AA positions on this hill. I base that assumption on the fact that there were homes in that area, that the people at one of those homes - called La Maisonnette (I've found the ruins in the hillside and photographed it thoroughly) - did not mention any AA guns there, and the Germans knew very well that any balloon attack would not be coming from the north, but the south... nevertheless, it remains an assumption because I have no documentation on it yet. I've found some references to it in archives in San Francisco, Chicago and one other location, but have yet to procure copies and get translations (they're in German). So I can't confirm that yet.

I believe that the view of this photo is only slightly below that held by the German gunners who killed Luke. Imagine a SPAD heading right to left in that photo at the same altitude as the photographer, then making a large left handed turn back the way it came, and getting hit somewhere before it left the picture again. That is very close to the way it happened, and the angle and altitude are nearly correct.

Nice photo. Thanks.

[Russell Smith]

I was wondering, was FL's chest wound inflicted before or after he landed? I see two possibilities here:
1. his SPAD was hit and he was forced to land. Very soon after landing he was struck in the chest.
2. he was struck in the chest while in the air and managed to bring his airplane down intact

Stephen, you say that you strongly believe that Luke was fatally wounded while in the air. I have no reason to doubt your research, but I am interested to see what you base your statement on.

Russ

[stephen]

Hi Russ;

Both of the eyewitness accounts (French and German), though differing vastly in several other areas, agree that Luke was hit in the air. Further, there is no mention of any damage to the plane by French witnesses, and testimonies on both sides agree that the Germans did not return Frank's fire on the ground (don't take that as gospel - I'm working on that, too).

So by all available accounts and by deduction, the logic points to Luke being hit in the air. Its possible that he was hit on the ground, but with the evidence that I have at this time, it is extremely unlikely.