For the friends of Billy Bishop

[Immo_Frese]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Striker

...but the fact is, the German records are all gone and the RFC ones cannot be proven .

In Bishop's case this is not true. The Kofl 6 reports ( Kommandeur der Flieger Armeeoberkommando 6 ) survived the bombing of WW2...

Immo

[JG1Schorner]

What I fail to understand is why the answer has to be black or white - 72 or nothing. It seems to me that the answer is somewhere in between. Bishop flew often, fought hard, and had many succesess, I think that few can question that. He also claimed under a system that encouraged certain types of claims that were discouraged by other the air services of other nations (OOC). There is also a fair amount of evidence suggesting that he was not above a bit of self promotion. However, even if he "only" got 20, 30, or 40 ... that is one hell of an accomplishment.

So, while IMHO it is OK to question the legitimacy of "72", it is also MHO necessary to give the man his due as a very successful fighter pilot. It should be possible to say that he overclaimed without attempting to discredit his entire career as a fighter pilot.

My own personal opinion is that McCudden is the "real" top scoring commonwealth ace .

["Junior"]

Originally Posted by JG1Schorner

My own personal opinion is that McCudden is the "real" top scoring commonwealth ace .

I'm with you there. McCudden was also simply one of the very, very best flight commanders of the War, a brilliant military officer. One of his comrades (can't remember which) and who had attended Sandhurst said that at Sandhurst they had been told the perfect (although probably impossible) military leader is one who has equal proportions of discipline and initiative. He said that McCudden was the one man he had know who had come closest to this ideal.

[MikeW]

Who on earth said it was 72 or nothing?

We know that some results were witnessed, there's the famous case where Robert Little of Naval 8 countersigned Bishop's CITAR - I think the problem that most people have with B stems from the fact (yes, the fact) that most of his claims were not ratified through the normal channels of CO, Wing, Brigade, and HQ in that order with evidence being assessed at each stage from other pilots, AA Batteries, balloon observers etc.

As I said the other day, to believe the best of Bishop is akin to having religious faith. Whether Bishop actually knocked down enemy after enemy is immaterial, without any evidence one has to want it to be true very strongly indeed. I personally would like it all to be true, but not that strongly that I'm prepared to go on faith alone.

One thought, Canada had taken a pasting on the ground and morale was poor - at home they desperately needed a hero, Bishop very conveniently provided that outlet.

Originally Posted by MikeW

he did however cause roughly that number of enemy aicraft to surrender that particular piece of sky whether they were genuinely "out of control" or simply spun away to be able to fight another day.

Exactly, and this is why we should be careful not to label these claims as "kills". The term "victory" is much more appropriate in cases such as these.

regards.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by MikeW

I think the problem that most people have with B stems from the fact (yes, the fact) that most of his claims were not ratified through the normal channels of CO, Wing, Brigade, and HQ in that order with evidence being assessed at each stage from other pilots, AA Batteries, balloon observers etc.

What emerged in an earlier thread

Bishop. New evidence

was that some of Bishop's claims were ratifed at Brigade level against the recommendation at squadron level.

[Frank_Olynyk]

WingedWarrior,

Neither "victory" nor "kill" is the correct term. The correct term is "decisive combat", and that is the terminology the British used during the war. A "decisive combat" is not a victory. The term "victory" should be used only for what is, or is believed to be, a destroyed aircraft. After all, that is what the everybody else counted. Except maybe the Americans, for which the problem is determining which claims were based on the British methodology, which on the French, and which on their own.

Frank.

[Soderbaum]

Hm...

To call the British claims as victories IS A SHAME against these countries who had official victory systems during the War...

It is also a way to falsify the history for todays "readers" who needs to get an overview of the aerial War...


Gunnar

[JG1Schorner]

Originally Posted by MikeW

As I said the other day, to believe the best of Bishop is akin to having religious faith. Whether Bishop actually knocked down enemy after enemy is immaterial, without any evidence one has to want it to be true very strongly indeed. I personally would like it all to be true, but not that strongly that I'm prepared to go on faith alone.

One thought, Canada had taken a pasting on the ground and morale was poor - at home they desperately needed a hero, Bishop very conveniently provided that outlet.

But how much faith is it really? I was under the impression that around half of Bishop's kills, err .... victories, ummm ... decisive combats ... ... were credited as "destroyed". 50/50 is a fairly normal destroyed/OOC ratio for Commonwealth pilots. This would give him about 35 destroyed, which is an excellent performance if it's true. Now we all know that getting credited for an aircraft doesn't mean that it's really so, and you commented on the fact that Bishops confirmation process was somewhat "modified". The next question is how many of these "destroyed" aircraft were witnessed and confirmed. If he only really got half of 35, that's still pretty good. OK, it's not 72, but it's nothing to sneeze at either.

As for Canada, yeah, they needed a hero, but they could always have turned to Collishaw, who as we all know shot down Allmenroeder (ducks and scurries for nearest exit).

["Junior"]

Originally Posted by Vin

was that some of Bishop's claims were ratifed at Brigade level against the recommendation at squadron level.

And that certainly raises eyebrows...