Bishop. New evidence

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally posted by "unknown pilot"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("unknown pilot")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Needless to say promotion and honours quickly came his way. He could not always fly alone. He had to lead flights and other formations over the lines. If it were commented upon that these forays did not result in victories he would reply that he did not mind risking his own life; he hated to risk the lives of those who followed him. In fact he was not prepared to do so.

EXCEPT that he did lead flights into combat, and he did have witnessed claims. Some have speculated that one of the reasons Scott liked Bishop so much was the Bishop saved Scott in an early combat. So far as I know, Bishop was not turned loose on his own until after he had 5+ confirmed. I believe that one of his early "solo" claims came about after he was seperated from the flight during a dogfight.

Originally posted by "unknown pilot"@
[b]Decorations were showered upon him. He came to be credited with some 80 victories. Finally he was awarded the Victoria Cross for his attack on a German fighter squadron on the ground. He shot down enemy pilots as they took off to intercept him.

Seems this guy has the likes to follow the same chain of events that Paul Cowan did, AND HE (the unknown pilot) has embellished "B&#39;s" score to "some 80 victories." This can&#39;t be Bishop. At the end of his service with 60 Squadron, he only had 47 confirmed, not "some 80."
<!--QuoteBegin-"Unknown Pilot"
[b]
I was not in 60 at the time so how do I know these things, it may be asked. I went to 60 soon after B had left. I arrived full of admiration for his wonderful record. Soon I realised that there was in the Squadron a question as to the truth of B’s claims bordering on total disbelief. This astounded me in view of the strict regulations governing the crediting of combat victories.[/quote]"Strict regulations???" It has been pointed out to me numerous times by more than a few on this forum, there were NO REGULATIONS for crediting of combat victories for the RAF/RFC. Did the rules suddenly change???

[alex_revell]

My unknown wasn&#39;t talking about B having 80 vics while in 60 Sqdn, but the total he was credited with after the war, when my unknown was writing. And everyone seems to be missing the main point that my unknown had the German records after the war and he could find no mention of the aerodrome raid. Yes, there was a strict rule for awarding victories, but that doesn&#39;t necessarily that they were victories as being aircraft destroyed. Vics were in categories. The original victory lists which were pinned up in the 56 Squadron office, for example, listed these categories by letter and put it after every claim. This was, I believe, purely a squadron thing. Combat claims were looked at by the CO of a squadron, then passed to Wing and then Brigade. The CO would state any confirmations he knew, usually seen by other pilots, but the final award was down to wing or brigade who had more information - ground troops, other squadrons, AA batteries - on which to either award or disallow. And my unknown was there, for goodness sake. He should know if strict guidelines applied.

[Billy_Bishop]

So in other words, Ronald Dodds (Brave Young Wings) had it all wrong?

I just wish we could keep this straight. Depending on who&#39;s book you read, either the British rules were strict, or they weren&#39;t.

By some accounts there was very little organization to their victory credits system at all&#33;

[Vin]

Originally posted by alex_revell@Jul 18 2004, 11:35 AM
[b] Combat claims were looked at by the CO of a squadron, then passed to Wing and then Brigade. The CO would state any confirmations he knew, usually seen by other pilots, but the final award was down to wing or brigade who had more information - ground troops, other squadrons, AA batteries - on which to either award or disallow. .

Just when I was beginning to think that this was an easy conspiracy theory and why hasn&#39;t anyone named the perpetrators over the past 85 years.

Firstly sorry for joining this thread so late. It has been an eye opener.

I wrote some time ago of Little's encounter with Bishop on July 12th, 1917 and the subsequent citar's.

One thing that has always bothered me was Little's citar mentions BB's victory and then states that BB and others witnessed his OOC, and was signed as per usual by the pilot, on this occassion being Little. BB's citar on the other hand is not only signed by BB, but Lieutenant Mowle and by Bob Little. I always thought this was a lot of trouble to go to for a citar.

Perhaps questions regarding the veracity of BB's claims were already being raised??

The other thing which I never gave much weight to before this thread was a comment Graves made in "his" bio of Bishop.....

"When Bishop's account of this combat reached RFC HQ there was a very positive reaction to it, as though it was just what they were looking for. On the 23rd it was referred back to OC 123th Wing with the request that the supporting evidence from Little, Soden and Mowie be expanded. They even dictated a form of words to be used. The adjutant at 13th Wing took this urgent request and added two revealing comments when passing it onto 601 Squadron for action:

"....and this officer (Lt. Mowie) had better mention that he saw it crash and spin into the ground near Vitry."

"... I would be obliged if you could send a motor cyclist to No. 8 Naval Squadron, and obtain this statement (as written by HQ) from Flight Sub-Lt. Little."

Perhaps the theif (Graves) was not far from the mark regarding RFC HQ sponsoring BB's claims?? I know that quoting Graves is dodgy at best but he did have access to all the documents, and probably still has!!

Food for thought anyway.

Regards,

Andrew.

[adrian roberts]

I don't claim to have access to original research, but it seems to me that Bishop got into the trap that we've probably all got into: telling a little fib, then having to cover it with a bigger one, and so on. The www.billybishop.net site suggests that on 2nd June 1917 he attacked a second-line unit, Jasta 20, at a temporary airfield, which is why the incident doesn't appear in the main German records. Bishop had intended to go with a mate, but the mate couldn't be bothered to get out of bed - which at least suggests BB wasn't intending to stage a pretend raid unwitnessed. It seems that no Germans were killed and the aircraft were repaired - but BB wouldn't have known this. His combat report (see the website) is actually quite undramatic; Scott's addendum pads it out with references to bullet holes in BB's plane etc. So for whatever reason, Bishop ended up with a VC and a reputation. Once the story spread he would have found it difficult to stop: but if this is a case of the Victoria Cross being prostituted he wasn't the only one responsible. And then he had to live up to the reputation. If a pilot flew alone he is obviously going to have less witnesses to his victories. Mid-1917 marked the shift from the lone wolf tactics (of Ball as well as Bishop) to formation patrols: but how many of us like going back to teamwork having been our own boss? BB continuing to fly alone may not have been primarily an attempt to deceive. But it would have seemed painful to go from superhero to being an only moderately successful pilot: so a few exaggerations must have been very tempting. I wonder if BB found himself difficult to live with after the war and if this caused his early death, along with a knackered liver.
Incidentally, I remember a quote that Ira Jones hated Bishop and in his "King of the Air Fighters" contrived to make his hero Mannock's score 73, one more than BB's 72. Interesting that however much he 'hated Bishop' he [alledgedly] raised MM's score rather than question BB's.

Originally Posted by alex_revell

As for the victories. Dear old Ed Ferko did a pretty extensive job on researching these and I'd bet my wife - yes, I said wife, not life - that he has more German records than Al Lowe, Graves or anyone else outside of Alex I. Ed tried very hard and I know he took a very unbiased view, but came up with not a single victory which could be even remotely credited. This is very unusual. When someone's victories are in doubt there are always - especially with such a large number as 75 - that there will be instances of 'this could have been, this probably was', type of thing.

Does this mean we should throw out this particular listing?


http://www.billybishop.net/bishopL.html

Just wondering.

regards

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally Posted by Andrew_Smith

...One thing that has always bothered me was Little's citar mentions BB's victory and then states that BB and others witnessed his OOC, and was signed as per usual by the pilot, on this occassion being Little. BB's citar on the other hand is not only signed by BB, but Lieutenant Mowle and by Bob Little. I always thought this was a lot of trouble to go to for a citar.

Perhaps questions regarding the veracity of BB's claims were already being raised??
...

As I understand it, if you have witnesses to a claim, if possible, you get those witnesses to sign your CITAR. It couldn't have been all that much trouble, IF BB got his witnesses to sign it.

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally Posted by wingedwarrior

Does this mean we should throw out this particular listing?


http://www.billybishop.net/bishopL.html

Just wondering.

regards

Nope. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even if they're wrong.

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally Posted by alex_revell

... Dear old Ed Ferko did a pretty extensive job on researching these and I'd bet my wife - yes, I said wife, not life - that he has more German records than Al Lowe, Graves or anyone else outside of Alex I. Ed tried very hard and I know he took a very unbiased view, but came up with not a single victory which could be even remotely credited. This is very unusual. When someone's victories are in doubt there are always - especially with such a large number as 75 - that there will be instances of 'this could have been, this probably was', type of thing. To my mind the sheer weight of evidence against B is simply overwhelming. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, either way.

Except of course, Ed Ferko doesn't have anything anymore...unfortunately.

I do find it odd that he couldn't come up with a single victory that could be credited, when you consider that Bishop had witnesses to more than 20 of his claims, including his CO and Robert Little. Even if you take Willie Fry's shared claim with BB out of the equation, since he denied actually having fired on anything. Makes you wonder, you know.