Albert Ball

[wulffo]

I have just gotten myself a copy of the Walter Zuerl book Pour le Merite Flieger. The photos btw p 320 and p 321 show items pertaining to ball... signal pistols,... and a Vickers machine gun. Does anyone know where these items have ended up? According to the book the machine gun has a bullet hole from LvR which is interesting in as so far as there was a 'claim' that the airplane had no battle damage whatsoever?! of course it could have been there before the LvR scrap.... and it could be someone elses gun. Nevertheless, if that was the original then it would do away with the theory of the thorough inspection of the 'triplane' SE showing no battle damage ..... Brings us to the point that it is very difficult to come up with 'definites' x years later... it still amazes me that we are so sure about inverted flying whilst changing Lewis gun amunition drums.... Am not trying to claim for LvR but want to do away with the bull that discredits his claim. He was shot down in this engagement and thought it was a tripe... seems to me he was put under a lot of pressure and getting shot down speaks for itself.... in his situation i would have probably seen f16's.

let me recap: ball shoots down lvr.... all clear
lvr claims a tripe.... doubtful but not impossible in the heat of combat
ground observers conveniently confirm a tripe... doubtful
lewis gun drum hitting ball.... fiction no proof
disorientation in cloud leading to loss of control... fiction no proof
german ground personel confirming lack of battle damage on crashed plane... extremely doubtful
ball confirmed as leathaly injured in crash... all clear
Lvr claim massaging... propaganda

.... based on this who wants to bet their life on LvR or the other theories???

[MikeW]

Wulffo,

ball shoots down lvr.... all clear

I'm sorry, that's not clear to me at all. The only two things that are clear to me is that LVR was shot down - by a triplane according to LVR's own testimony, and that Ball crashed and died.

I'll say this once more, and I expect it will be completely ignored once again, but Naval 1 had a flight of Sopwith Triplanes in the right area at the right time. The New Zealander, Thomas Gray Culling reported a long drawn out "running fight" with an Albatros scout, no claim, but it was getting dark and he broke off without seeing what became of the Albatros.

Now, I fail to understand why we all assume that LVR couldn't tell the difference between a Sopwith Triplane and an SE5, and, why we all ignore Culling's report. By "we", I of course exclude myself.

Culling was a skilled and aggressive pilot, almost certainly a match for LVR at that time of his carreer.


Now, I'm not saying it was Culling and it wasn't Ball, I'm saying that the evidence, such as it is, favours Culling rather more than it does Ball.

Mike

[Soderbaum]

For me its completely clear...

The fact is that LvR did identify the victim he brought down as "Capt Ball" in his victory report. LvR also landed nearby but we dont knew for certain that he "investigated" the victim directly...it does not exists any other German claims for this victory...

So whats the problem...?

The fact is for a confirmed German victory, it do not demand that you actually hit the enemy crew or even hit the enemy aircraft...

However, Mike W is correct that it was Sopwith Triplanes in the area the right time...BUT...there were also British Spads fighting in the area...

Those who dont understand that mis-identyfying of enemy a/c was more a rule then an exception ought to read a lot of more original material...
For the Germans, how could they identify (in the best of cases) an enemy a/c (SE 5) which they did not knew existed ..?

Gunnar

[MikeW]

Hi Gunnar,

I understand what you are saying, I just think that a pilot of Lothar's experience would have reported being in combat with an unidentified biplane if he didn't know what an SE5 was - I believe the usual term for an SE5 at first was "Sopwith type".

I also have no problems with the authorities awarding Ball's crash to Lothar - it's exactly what the Allies would have done had it been the other way round! I do believe however the evidence is at best circumstantial and very weak indeed. As Wulfoo says "would you bet your life on it?"

I just see two versions of a fight, Lothar's and Culling's and think that location, time, descriptions and circumstances tie up remarkably well.


As for your comment about a SPAD, I think that's a red herring, I think that a SPAD 7 was more of a hit and run machine, I don't see that it was suited to a long drawn out engagement with an Albatros, a well flown Albatros at that!

Mike

[stevedrew]

Gunnar,

"The fact is for a confirmed German victory, it do not demand that you actually hit the enemy crew or even hit the enemy aircraft..."

umm...in the words of Pauline Hanson (joke for the aussies here)...PLEASE EXPLAIN??

You don't have to hit the crew or the aircraft to claim an enemy aircraft? There have been instances of forcing an enemy to land (if, say for instance, that they were out of ammunition, or suffer a gun jamb) without hitting the aircraft or crew...and this would be correctly adjudged a "victory", is this what you are referring to, or are you planting your tongue firmly in your cheek? (I noted the )

Steve

[Soderbaum]

Hi Mike

"Red Herring"
Do you suggest that the persons who earlier on this Forum cites combat reports from 23 sq RFC which show that the unit was fighting German Albatrosses in the right area and time are using falsified material...?

For me it only proofs what the reports from 1 N sq shows, i.e. they were in the right area and time and were probably fighting German a/c....and possible met a/c from Jasta 11...


Quote:
"I just think that a pilot of Lothar's experience would have reported being in combat with an unidentified biplane if he didn't know what an SE5 was"

Here I will cite an answer I made in an earlier thread about this incident:
-Around this time it was a Triplane mania regarding what the German reported..for example on 10 May 1917 four different Naval units(Köster,Moere,Bamburg and Grossherzog) all reported that they shot down a Triplane...!
It was however a Sopwith-Pup from 4 N sq.....-

If the Germans had used the "French metod" and only reported Balls a/c as an e/a, we would not have part of this discussion...or...?

So here I cómpletely agree with Wulffo that possible correct identifying of enemy aircraft in hot combats was rare or luck.... The fact that the British had lots of more different fighters then the French, also made it difficult for the German....It is also possible that the a/c from Jasta 11 were involved with at least three different e/a (see above) within a very limited time....

Gunnar

[wingedwarrior]

Originally Posted by MikeW

I believe the usual term for an SE5 at first was "Sopwith type".

You are correct Mike. The German pilots often identified SE5's as Sopwith Einsitzern (hence the 'SE' ) This happened all the way until the end of WWI. Correct identification was never a strong point on either side of the lines.

regards,

Darren

[Soderbaum]

OK Steve

Here are some basics how the German confirmed aerial victories..!

It was needed some sort of engagement which resulted in the "complete" loss of the aircraft for the enemy....It should also be proven and not nececerely by witnesses from the air...for example later "intelligence reports" from flyers or "other sources" could be enough...

If you have access to the "Over The Front" it was an article some Years ago about a German "Ace" who with jammed guns attacked an e/a and was able to force it to land within German lines..this victory claim was indeed confirmed by Kogenluft...!!..It exists more example of this kind...
This victory would also have been confirmed if the e/a had landed ok within allied lines (crew ok to fight another day) and if the aircraft was destroyed by German artillery...

I would say that it were most certain many hundreds of German victories confirmed during the War after that the e/a was attacked (withou beeing hit) were the attack resulted in that the enemy lost control of their a/c and crashed into ground...:-
For example, if the Sopwith Camel was a tricky a/c to fly in controlled training circumstances....how many pilots lost their lifes in a "super stressed" combat situation...?

At last: an extreme example where a German victory could be confirmed...
" a German crew attacks "one" BE 2 of a group of three BE 2s over No Mans land, and puts a lots of holes into it, and the German crew are convinced that they have brought it down....The truth is that however that the BE 2 returns ok to their own aerodrome....
However the engine of one of the other two BE 2s stops and it had to land ok 2 km within allied lines "without" beeing attacked....luckily (for the Germans) a direct artillery hit and destroy their a/c..
For the Germans it is quite simple: They have an report from their flyers that an e/a is shot down near x, time y. They also have ground reports that "the" e/a was seen to land within lines and destroyed by their artillery at the right time and place.."
In this case the victory claim is with rather certainty confirmed....hm....

Gunnar

[wulffo]

the classical one is the pursuit of an aircraft which tries to evade and colides with a compatriot... i think that would be credited as two kills... Thanks Mike for the triplane angle, I hadn't read about that before but logically that would also make sense...

The main reason for starting this thread is the argument that a 'true ace best be unconquered in the air' which I believe to be total nonsense, especially given the amount of near misses, etc. The evidence that is used to support this is often very laughable (lewis gun drum theory... could have just the same colided with a pigeon....).... coming out I am getting some new angles and the other question is what happened to the momentos... surely the invading red army would not have appreciated these things in 45?

[MikeW]

Gunnar

Do you suggest that the persons who earlier on this Forum cites combat reports from 23 sq RFC which show that the unit was fighting German Albatrosses in the right area and time are using falsified material...?

Of course I'm not suggesting any such thing, I merely observe that the heavily loaded SPAD, whilst being a fine aircraft, was not suited to a long drawn out "turning" fight which is what Lothar and his opponent, whoever he was, indulged in.


I just looked up the "prose" of Cecil Lewis from Saggitarius Rising - I really don't know how reliable his memory was when he wrote the book, but he was there and he mentions a flight of Naval Triplanes being sucked into the engagement - the sight of them came as something of a relief to the beleagured SE5 pilots.

Mike