Bishop. New evidence

[retread]

Alan,
In your last post on this thread you mention Fonck in comparison with Bishop. Is this just a reference to their mutual unpopularity with their mates or has there been at some point in time question on the veracity of Fonck's claims?
My purpose is not to try to stir up some unwarranted controversy involving Fonck. I feel that assuming his claims are true , or even largely true- he was probably the most proficient fighter pilot of the Great War. I know he was a braggart and disliked. From what I have read the French system of confirming a kill was probably the most demanding of all the flying services. Has doubt been cast on Fonck's claims? Has anyone ever tied to verify Fonck's claims with exsisting records?
I find Fonck fascinating in this regard- Assuming the historical record re-garding his achievements is true (and at this point I have no reason to doubt) he has been largely ignored by history as a result of his personality and what we would now call his political incorrectness. I feel this is an injustice to Fonck and much more so to history. This ain't no popularity contest, or at least it shouldn't be.
Unless... is there more to it than that?

[Alan]

I won't divert this thread to a Fonck one, and I am no expert in that realm, but correct me if I am wrong but did he not claim something in the realm of 115? Of which 75 was all that was given?

Wiser ones than I can answer that.

My point is that I can think of no one else off the top of my head with as much seeming controversy with their claims, who also happens to be a leading ace for their respective service.

Unless I'm waaaaay off base and I will stand back and learn more...(and I have no problem learning from mistakes.......)

[alex_revell]

Weldboy,
'Fraid I don't know much about Fonck - after all he was French But you are wide of the mark in saying that Bishop was not popular with his squadron mates. He was extremely popular. Which makes their distrust of his claims even more believable. Grid Caldwell in a letter to Willie Fry, touching briefly on B, says as much about B's popularity, but that they all knew he was a 'medal chaser'. He was certainly succesful at that!
Sorry everyone about my slightly facetious remark of 'I don't give a damn, my dear' I was referring to the actual argument about B's record, not the award of the VC. I don't think, though, that it takes anything away from the achiements of people like Mannock, McCudden, B-Proctor et al. McCudden was far prouder of the fact that he had so few casualties while leading his Flight than in his victories. I have always thought that the award of a VC for sustained effort is more worthy than for many of the single acts for which it was awarded.

[retread]

Alex R.,
Would it be more accurate to say that Bishop was resented rather than disliked? I have read quite a bit of Elliot White Spring's stuff and I think it is safe to say he (and those around him) got along famously with Bishop. They were the party set with a towering appreciation for booze and gals. As aviators they were in the limelight and were grabbing onto those green photons with both hands, Bishop leading the way.
Still, after reading this and similar threads there were those (and not a few) who held or suspected Bishop to be a fraud. I get the impression that these feelings were more exacerbating to those who held them as time passed. If it was not dislike of the man it was aggrevation because of and anger toward him.

[Russell]

Hi all.

Personally I think a bit of research, courtesy of that low life Mr Graves thieving the original combat reports, is warranted. Look at the claims by Bishop made after he was told he was going home in June 18. Doubt if you find any credible witnesses, and he was always solo. If you want to know why 74 Squadron (in particular Jones) did not like him, they were on patrol in the same area at the same time as the 19 June 1918 fight and saw nothing. This is mid 1918, when the RAF were filtering all combat reports up through the Brigades, before they were totalled up and the Comic Cuts prepared.

What does that prove. By itself not a lot, but combined with the total lack of any evidence as to who these last victims might be then the prove the trend. That is as said, you cannot find any matching units he is fighting let alone whether they lost someone. In the area of the front concerned at least three of the Jastas have good records etc due to their star turns surviving, and thats Strahle, Degelow and Jacobs. There should be victims. The only one known was killed by Harry Cobby, fully witnessed and the tail skid is in the AWM.

When I compare Bishops claims with McCuddens, it is distressing to me, and has been since 1983 when I first had a go at it, that you can nearly always find who McCuddens fight was with, and can name on solid grounds most of his victims. You simply cannot for Bishop. He is unfortunately not the only one, but he is by far the worst.

Lastly on the subject of the AWM, it has little promos on the History channel in OZ, entitled "In our Collection". For the Baron buffs out there the latest one has nice shots of the star items of their relics of the Triplane, including a full cross and surrounding fabric, bit of strut, compass and other bits.

Russell.

[alex_revell]

Weldboy,
No, I don't think there was any resentment against B. You must remember that all the pilots expected that they would be dead within a very short time, so why should they care about B overclaiming. It was probably a bit of a joke more than anything else. 'I see Bish has claimed another four this morning'. Nod nod, nudge, nudge, know what I mean. 'What's yours, it's my round'. The sole reason that Willie Fry spoke out was because he was upset that Meintjes, Caldwell, Horn etc, who he considered the real fighters in the squadron, were not getting any credit - which was due. I can't tell you what with admiration Wille spoke of them after a span of 60 odd years.
I'm sure the reason Elliot White Springs et al liked B was because he let them carry on with their partying and drinking instead of getting on with the war. I'm sure in my mind that the reason that they vetoed McCudden as a CO was nothing to do with class or the up from the ranks thing - after all they were Americans so would be a little freer of those ideas than the Brits. I think it was because they knew that Mac as CO wouldn't have stood any nonsense about it all being a big game. Parry, who was in 60 when Mac was going to take command, told me more than once that Mac would have completely shaken up the squadron. 'No more flying in pyjamas and cigarette buts on the floor of cockpits' was one of the things I remember him saying.
I think it's important to get things into perspective as to how people thought at the time. If your life expectancy is fairly low, why should you care if someone is a 'bullshitter'. As Grid Caldwell said, B was popular and good fun in the mess.

Bishop fascinates me, in somewhat the way that an annoying itch is a source of fascination. I do have a question, though, about the autobio extract at the beginning of this most recent (but no doubt not ultimate) go-round.

If Bishop's sudden ascendence into PR heaven was the result of a decision to "release names" without regard to previously accepted practises, where are the other, similar, fraudsters in the RFC? Which other pilots benefited from this sudden relaxation in standards? Surely BB wasn't the only pilot so desperate for approval as to take advantage of such an opportunity.

I'm not attempting to defend Bishop here. I have learned enough about him over the years (the most compelling of which bits of info and opinion must also remain unsourced in respect to the departed) to believe that his squadron-mates' opinions of him were largely accurate. But Bishop is such a classic example of the sort of personality that makes a successful fighter pilot that I can't for an instant believe that he was the only one who tried this thing on for size. (He may have been the only one to get a VC, but that's for another time. Oh, wait. It isn't: it's been done to death here already.)

So I'm being serious here. If BB's enthusiastic claiming was supported at Brigade level, presumably someone in the upper ranks of the RFC was eager to approve victory claims in order to aid the effort back 'ome. Application of Occam's Razor suggests that BB couldn't have been singled out, on the basis of no experience whatever, to be the only recipient of this sort of official largesse.

Where there's smoke...

[Vin]

What makes this Bishop thread different, well, to me, anyway, is the issue of the apparent connivance of officials, at least at Brigade level, in the lack of stringency in confirmation procedure in Bishop’s claims, rather than his honesty. So

1. Were Bishop’s claims treated differently from those of others ?
2. If so, who were the individuals who confirmed them ?
3. If not, why did so few others make claims enabled Brigade to confirm them against the recommendation of squadron leader and wing ?

[Barrett]

IIRC there's been speculation over the years that BB's VC was linked to Canadian losses at Vimy Ridge a couple months before his alleged raid. In context of WW I, 10,600 casualties (some 3,500 dead) doesn't sound like much but for Canada in 1917 that was a large butcher's bill. Perhaps Michael and some other Canadian Forumites mght comment. I.E.: is it possible that BB's gong originated with some indefinite sentiment in Ottawa for a New Hero?

[alex_revell]

Barrett. Vin and Michael,
Now you're getting to what is probably the truth behind the whole thing.!!!