Bishop. New evidence

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally posted by Vin@Jul 7 2004, 03:25 AM
[b] Is this description of the process accurate ? How was Squadron informed ? If by letter or written communique, who signed the letter/communique ? Who authorised the signing of the letter/communique ? Did this procedure apply to all of Bishop’s claims, or, after a while, did the CO of 60RFC give in and accept as confirmed all of Bishop’s claims ?

Greenhous’ theory is that the confirmations were made by the CO of 60RFC, “Jack” Scott and that his connections with the upper ranks of English society, through his friendship with Lady Mary St Helier, translated his report of the air raid of the German aerodrome in a VC. Whether true or not, Greenhous’ explanation is interesting reading in the context of this thread.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vo...pdf/61-64_e.pdf

As I recall, the confirmation process varied somewhat from one squadron to another. I would guess that each squadron commander had his own method for recommending each level of confirmation.

I believe that the squadron commanders would either recommend confirmation, or would be against confirmation, but final say so was at brigade level.

In any event, as some previous publications have already shown, Bishop did not get all of his claims confirmed. I really wish that Above The Trenches would have included unconfirmed as well as confirmed claims. Most of what I have access to, only lists about 5-7 unconfirmed claims made by Bishop, including 2 (or maybe 3?) while he was CO of 85 Squadron.

I have seen references in letters that indicate he had many more that were unconfirmed. But no other references of any official nature.

I would think that IF we assume for a moment that Bishop was picked to replace Albert Ball as the RFC "hero," then we could assume he got no special treatment higher than his own Squadron CO prior to Ball's death.

As it is, I don't think that Scott ever gave in. But then as many claim, he was BB's sponser, so to say. And Bishop did have unconfirmed while serving under Scott.

[Vin]

The unknown’s account is that very early in Bishop’s career at 60AFC he made his first claims that were confirmed by Brigade against the CO’s recommendation. That must have been in March or April 1917 when Jack Scott was the CO of 60RFC. Al says that it was Scott who confirmed Bishop’s claims. There is clear conflict in the accounts of the role of the CO in the confirmation of Bishop's unwitnessed claims between the account of the unknown and what Al reports. Which of the two is right ?

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally posted by Vin@Jul 13 2004, 07:52 AM
[b] The unknown’s account is that very early in Bishop’s career at 60AFC he made his first claims that were confirmed by Brigade against the CO’s recommendation. That must have been in March or April 1917 when Jack Scott was the CO of 60RFC. Al says that it was Scott who confirmed Bishop’s claims. There is clear conflict in the accounts of the role of the CO in the confirmation of Bishop's unwitnessed claims between the account of the unknown and what Al reports. Which of the two is right ?

No, I didn't say that Scott confirmed Bishop's claims. Scott would, as Squadron CO either recommend they be confirmed by higher up and send it on, or recommmend against confirmation and send it on. It was inevitably up to Brigade whether or not claims were confirmed.

In either event, I do not claim to be the authority on the British victory credit's system, if it could be called that.

[Vin]

Quite right, Al, you didn't say that Scott confirmed Bishop's claims. Greenhous did. Apologies for misrepresenting you. Even more interesting. Both Greenhous and the unknown are critics of Bishop and give opposing accounts of the confirming process as it applied to Bishop.

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally posted by Vin@Jul 13 2004, 06:42 PM
[b] Quite right, Al, you didn't say that Scott confirmed Bishop's claims. Greenhous did. Apologies for misrepresenting you. Even more interesting. Both Greenhous and the unknown are critics of Bishop and give opposing accounts of the confirming process as it applied to Bishop.

That's because the critics like to try to lay the blame with Scott and Bishop alone. At least Cowan got it right that higher ups had to have a hand in it, if we assume there was a plan to promote Bishop as a hero.

Yet they can't seem to get together and agree on the particulars, other than saying Bishop "lied," or words to that effect.

[karrart]

Originally posted by CaptainLewis@Jul 8 2004, 10:41 AM
[b]
Regarding MANNOCK--
If you're going to mention Bishop's score or who was the Empire's Ace of Aces, Mannock's name will inevitably come up:
We have as Mannock's tally the number "73" from Ira "Taffy" Jones, recalling the last phone conversation he had with Mannock (in which Mannock gave his score as 73); this is recounted in Jones' book on Mannock The King of the Airfighters (which, I'm afraid, although I haven't read it, strikes me more as hagiography rather than biography)...
That being said--
I've come across a C&C article .......
The point being, we don't have to take Jones' word for it-- Mannock's score, whether 73 or 75, was understood to have been that high;

I don't really have an acute bone to jab at anybody in this "fight", but today while going through old C&Cs looking for something entirely different I came across another article that had Mannock's high score to be a hagiographic invention of Jones and his likely actual score somewhere closer to the lower 40s....don't know, but figured I'd toss it into the stew and see what dripped out!
RK
http://members.aol.com/karrart/
for now until karrart.com is ready to go.......

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally posted by karrart+Jul 13 2004, 11:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (karrart &#064; Jul 13 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainLewis@Jul 8 2004, 10:41 AM
[b]
Regarding MANNOCK--
If you&#39;re going to mention Bishop&#39;s score or who was the Empire&#39;s Ace of Aces, Mannock&#39;s name will inevitably come up:
We have as Mannock&#39;s tally the number "73"* from Ira "Taffy" Jones, recalling the last phone conversation he had with Mannock (in which Mannock gave his score as 73); this is recounted in Jones&#39; book on Mannock The King of the Airfighters (which, I&#39;m afraid, although I haven&#39;t read it, strikes me more as hagiography rather than biography)...
That being said--
I&#39;ve come across a C&C article .......
The point being, we don&#39;t have to take Jones&#39; word for it-- Mannock&#39;s score, whether 73 or 75, was understood to have been that high;

I don&#39;t really have an acute bone to jab at anybody in this "fight", but today while going through old C&Cs looking for something entirely different I came across another article that had Mannock&#39;s high score to be a hagiographic invention of Jones and his likely actual score somewhere closer to the lower 40s....don&#39;t know, but figured I&#39;d toss it into the stew and see what dripped out&#33;
RK
http://members.aol.com/karrart/
for now until karrart.com is ready to go.......[/quote]
From the digest put together by the head of Canada&#39;s War Amps (a charity organization that started after WWI, and now also aids non-war amputees), Cliff Chadderton, it is apparent that the question of Mick Mannock&#39;s actual score has been going on probably longer than the controversy of whether or not Bishop inflated his own score.

Depending on who&#39;s books you read, Mannock&#39;s score seems to have flucuated between 50 (the score attributed to him in his post war Gazette posting of his VC) to 73, the score that Taffy Jones gives him credit for.

Above The Trenches seems to have the most accurate score, at 61. But that also depends on whether or not they found all of Mannocks confirmed claims. Considering that I&#39;m told some RAF records were lost in transit from France to England at the end or shortly after the war. And with the theft of records some years ago, of which I&#39;ll bet not all were recovered, we may never know.

While I enjoy the conversation and the hunt for new information, I grow tired of all the back and forth bickering over questions and controversies. I just wonder whether or not we can agree that ALL these men were brave for climbing into those machines made of fabric, wood and metal, and leave it at that?

No, I suppose not.

[PeterL]

Originally posted by Billy_Bishop+Jul 14 2004, 04:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Bishop &#064; Jul 14 2004, 04:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> While I enjoy the conversation and the hunt for new information, I grow tired of all the back and forth bickering over questions and controversies.* I just wonder whether or not we can agree that ALL these men were brave for climbing into those machines made of fabric, wood and metal, and leave it at that?*

No, I suppose not.

I could have written that myself, unfortunately including the final comment. Abso-bloomin&#39;-lutely agree. I realize you don&#39;t win wars by getting killed, but who is to say that he who is blown out of the sky first trip out is not at that moment the bravest man whoever lived? Not me.

<!--QuoteBegin-EARTHLING
[b]It is like saying I don&#39;t like Budweiser because I&#39;ve never tasted it[/quote]

I have, and it&#39;s horrid&#33;

[Vin]

Bishop’s honesty is a different issue. If the unknown is correct that Brigade confirmed Bishop’s claims against the recommendation of the CO of 60RFC ( Scott ?) then was Bishop treated differently from other claimants, if so, why, by whom and to what end ?

There hasn’t been any bickering in this thread. Participants have been restrained and issues more interesting than whether Bishop is a liar or not or whether Mannock’s score was 50, 61 or 73 (whichever, it was a lot anyway) have been aired. I’ve been enjoying it.

[PeterL]

I wouldn&#39;t disagree with you there either Vin. I merely wish to voice my agreement with the rather more general point, which admittedly refers back to previous discussions where the question has been debated with rather more force shall we say. The quote was carefully chosen and names no names.