For the friends of Billy Bishop

[Breguet]

Yes, I believe he still has some!! This article appeared recently, though I don't personally endorse what it says by any means.

http://www.ku.edu/carrie/archives/wwi-l/BB/docs.html

[R Pope]

There are still a lot of us out here! The way modern "historians" rant and rave, you'd wonder how anybody ever got any recognition in the days before TV and radio correspondents documented everything. So a few events can't be proven to modern standards, that doesn't mean they couldn't have happened.I believe there were a whole lot more real heroes that went unacknowledged than there were BS artists that did. Too many researchers have their own personal axes to grind.

[MikeW]

I have no axe to grind with Bishop, my interest in the RFC only being sparked when there is an impact on the RNAS.

So as for Bishop - certainly makes me laugh - remember, no axe here!

Have any other aces gone through the same kind of scrutiny about their claims. There were probably others who were prone to exagerate their scoe *cough Foch cough*

[MikeW]

The combined Allied Air Services exaggerated their score, especially the RFC. No one (at least I assume no one) is accusing Bishop of exaggerating his score.

No, exaggerate is certainly not the word that comes to my mind.

Bishop is like a religion, you either believe based upon faith not fact, or you are an athiest. Or I suppose you could sit on the fence and be an agnostic.

["Junior"]

Hehe, I can see this one starting all over again

72? Yeah right

Still as has been said before, anyone who flew in the First Show had the courage of a lion as far as I'm concerned!

[Craig]

Originally Posted by R Pope

Too many researchers have their own personal axes to grind.

Sometimes that axe is ground to protect sacred Cows from scrutiny. The truth will win out only when we are rational about these things. We don't need more myths and heroes. We need to know what really happened.

I've read both sides of the argument and the most persuasive was the one that says we really can't say either way. As a Canadian i would love to believe that Bishop was the empire ace of aces but the fact is, the German records are all gone and the RFC ones cannot be proven. Any arguments for or against usally degenerate into ad hominem attacks about revioninst history and Canadian national characteristics and history in record time. These are all highly charged issues at home.

Most of the questions i've been asking have bene concerned with the other Canadian pilots, because if they were that good, there is some chance that Bishop's claims may be somewhat on the level. Did Collingshaw get 62, Did Barker get 50, Did Udet get 60?, Did Foch really get 80? Is there proof any better or worse then Bishops?

It seems Bishop is the only ace who's going through the mill.

[MikeW]

Sgt.Striker,

You ask "did Collishaw get 62?"


I feel qualified to answer that one (and this time have an axe to grind as the RNAS is my special interest). The answer must be "No, of course he didn't" - 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.

Collishaw was seen to do these things, he got shot down a couple of times in the process and frequently came back with his machine riddled with bullets. In his CO's opinion, he was a very good leader but incredibly careless of his own safety - makes him very lucky I suppose.


Mike

thanks for the reply mike