New "accepted" scores of Mannock, Bishop

[Stephan]

Duck, yes I have read 2 Bickers books. Absolute garbage. His book on Richthofen is the worst book ever written about the Baron. I have personally chided him in correspondences regarding this.

His book on Lacey was a good read, he did take a potshot at Germans in it, something about strafing civlilans in France & the German charcter taking enjoyment in it.

He is nonetheless a well respected author & 80 books is impressive. He mentioned in the book " The Legend Reevaluated" the score of 73 for Mannock. He is wrong.

[Graeme]

We were all "wrong" until the declassification of documents at the PRO under the 70-year rule. Accordingly, 73 was the "accepted wisdom" from when Taffy Jones' book was published until "Above The Trenches" demonstrated otherwise.

However, it must be pointed out that there never was an official tallying of scores for pilots in the British flying services, just acceptance that some claims were more valid than others. There was no suggestion of members of the RFC etc seeking confirmation of a victory, hence no official scores.

A number of years back I did a compilation of Mannock's score using information from all sources and came up with a total in excess of 90; loads of these were claimed as "driven down" and I was unable to find first-hand evidence for many others (so-and-so recalling a scrap in which Mannock shot something down). One or two others were genuine mistakes, ie where the combat took place late in the evening the combat report mentioned that date while the action was reported in the Communiques under the following day's date (two for the price of one!).

With a stretch of the imagination (and turning a few "driven downs" into "out of controls") I believe a maximum of 68 can be reached (if memory serves, which it increasingly doesn't these days, Grid Caldwell mentions something like this figure in the foreword in one of the books on Mannock). It seems the "true" figure lies between here and the 50 stated in his VC citation.

Graeme

[PeterL]

Originally Posted by Graeme

However, it must be pointed out that there never was an official tallying of scores for pilots in the British flying services, just acceptance that some claims were more valid than others. There was no suggestion of members of the RFC etc seeking confirmation of a victory, hence no official scores.

Good point. Aside from that I must agree with Dan San. It was the figures accepted at the time, if indeed any were and whether official or accurate or otherwise, which won these men their place in history. <HERESY>Useful though it may be in some regard, and riveting as it is to those who engage in such pursuits, revising the figures does not change that fact and is of little consequence in the great scheme of things.</HERESY

[Stephan]

Good post Graeme.

[Stephan]

To be accurrate, it wasn't the figure that was accepted at the time for Mannock, it was in 1919 that the figure of 73 was assigned.

[Graeme]

My point being that the Air Ministry, by way of the citation for Mannock's VC, stated that he definitely accounted for 50 enemy aircraft. This was July 1919.

73 was not "accepted" until Taffy Jones said it was so (1927?). Since nobody was in a position to gainsay him, and after all he had been there, this was what Mannock had got and everybody said so until Christopher Shores et al put out their work, showing the position to be somewhat different.

To an extent, the numbers are an irrelevance. To my mind, what marks Mannock as a better leader than others with similar scores, ie Bishop, Ball or even McCudden, was the tutelage of the men under his command. Unfortunately, in this competetive world it's the numbers that count, so everybody does their best to "upgrade" their personal hero. Mick's mine, and I don't care whether he got 50, 68, 73 or something else.

Graeme

[Stephan]

Here is the 1919 data. It could be wrong, but it is to be found about here & there.


(The RAF's 'generous' attitude to confirmation was continued after the war, when it agreed in 1919 to posthumously raise Major 'Mick' Mannock's score to seventy-three: one above Bishop's total.) A realisation that the value of aces lay in their propaganda activities, more than in their fighting skills, is also evident in the efforts that were made to keep them alive. Shortly before his death, Ball had been offered two weeks' leave by Trenchard himself, but had refused the offer. In 1917, Bishop was allowed extended leave in Canada, which turned into a recruitment drive. In 1918 he was posted back to England as an instructor, and he was removed again from active service in the summer of 1918 to take up a staff job. During the last twelve months of the conflict, Bishop was in a front line squadron for only three months


& Yes Mick may have been a great leader, but that is a bit of a different topic than who was a great ace. Fonck was a great ace, but not so great a leader.Edu Neumann, ( Marseille's boss ), is a good example of a good leader, but not quite so great an ace.

& numbers do matter regading acedom. That was their job, knocking down aircraft. If they knocked down a lot of em, that means they were good at it.

Edu Neumann, if I recall correctly, was credited with 93 victories. By any standards, how was he not a great ace ???

[Frank_Olynyk]

Edu Neuman was credited with 2 victories in Spain, and 11 victories with JG 27 in World War 2.

Frank.

[Graeme]

Stephan

With 61 (or thereabouts), Mick was both a great "ace" and a great leader - that's why he gets my vote ahead of some others with similar (or greater) tallies - and keeps my replies "on-topic". Also, that's why I say that scores are to an extent an irrelevance, Mick didn't merely do the job, he showed others how, perhaps at the expense of increasing his own number of claims.

Personally, I've not seen anything that quoted 73 before Taffy's book, but I have heard of a compilation made shortly after the war (not sure by whom or the date but seem to recall 1922) in which Bishop was listed with 75 (apparently including some balloons that don't appear in most listings); as far as I can recall, Mannock was shown with 57. From what I can make out, this list was based upon medal citations that appeared in the London Gazette. I'd be interested in the source of the 1919 "uplifting" to 73.

Graeme