Balloonist/Billy Bishop

Billy_Bishop · 19 December 2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspiranha

I'm not going to get drawn back into this debate again. Al has his opinion, I have mine. I believe that we have finally agreed that we will disagree on this.

Al, why don't you write a book?

Salute,

David Johnson

Thanks for digging up the info Dave.

What I found interesting on Markham's research, even though his final opinion was that he could not prove that Bishop did the raid of 2 June, 1917, others have used parts of his research in their opinion that Bishop did do the raid.

As for me writing a book, I'm sure the last thing this world needs is one more book on Bishop.

Still, I suppose I could always write an opposing view point to Greenhous' last book on Bishop.

DEM · 19 December 2005, 04:09 PM

So, we must discount Weirter's claim because

a) he didn't know how to paint a Nieuport
b) he claimed to have seen Bishop with four EA at 5,000 feet and Billy said he fought no more than two at once (at tree-top level).

But there's a line in Bishop's combat report that reads:
"I then flew 1,000 feet under four scouts at 5,000 feet for one mile and turned west climbing."

Is that what Weirter saw? Bishop retreating with four EA at 5,000 feet? Sounds like it to me. It sounds like he saw at least that much, which confirms at least a small part of the story.
What we have here is the testimony of a very brave man (you had to be to go up in a balloon in 1917) who was there, being discounted by amateur historians who were not there (and who likely have never been in a balloon in their lives.
It sounds to me like there was a credible witness.

pspiranha · 19 December 2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEM

...being discounted by amateur historians who were not there ....

Please reread my post a bit closer... I believe I stated, quite clearly, that the information came from the published findings of Mr Phil Markham. While I may be an "amateur" historian, I assure you that Mr. Markham was not!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEM

...

So, we must discount Weirter's claim because

a) he didn't know how to paint a Nieuport."

One look at the painting will tell you everything you need to know. And why did he not make this claim to his superiors? Instead he waits quite awhile and then trys to peddle a painting to the museum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEM

...
b) he claimed to have seen Bishop with four EA at 5,000 feet and Billy said he fought no more than two at once (at tree-top level)

But there's a line in Bishop's combat report that reads:
"I then flew 1,000 feet under four scouts at 5,000 feet for one mile and turned west climbing.

And where exactly was he? Was he 1000 ft below the 4 scouts ie 4000 ft. or was he at 1000 ft and 4000 ft below the enemy scouts? I don't recall his saying he climbed real high before getting back across the lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEM

...
Is that what Weirter saw? Bishop retreating with four EA at 5,000 feet? Sounds like it to me. It sounds like he saw at least that much, which confirms at least a small part of the story.

I suppose that Bishop and his 4 scouts were the only planes in the air on the entire front? Even if Weirter DID see some planes what does that prove? Nothing! I suppose one could even stretch it a bit say say that he did indeed see Bishop and 4 planes. So what? Bishop did fly around somewhere. But none of that adds up to any support of the aerodrome raid itself.

I don't know who said it but " The best lies contain at least a few grains of truth".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEM

...
What we have here is the testimony of a very brave man (you had to be to go up in a balloon in 1917) who was there, being discounted by amateur historians who were not there (and who likely have never been in a balloon in their lives.

What on god's green earth does whether or not I ,or any other historian, not having gone up in a balloon have to do with any of this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEM

...
It sounds to me like there was a credible witness.

Really? In that case I have some nice beach front property I would like to sell you. But we can only go look at it during low tide

Believe what you want. I for one am rather tired of this argument that has waged far too long.

V/R

David Johnson

Billy_Bishop · 20 December 2005, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspiranha

...I for one am rather tired of this argument that has waged far too long.

V/R

David Johnson

Believe me David, I know how you feel. But I think this is one of those things that will see new participants coming to it, on both sides from time to time.

Either we old guys keep our noses out, or else get prepared for the same arguments we had years ago.

I likely would not have chimed in, but sitting at home with a bum leg, trying to heal, I had nothing better to do.

V/R

DEM · 21 December 2005, 06:14 PM

David

No offence was intended. I was just making the point that you were not there and Mr. Markham was not there. Weirter, on the other hand, was an actual balloonist on the Western Front. If he said he saw it, who are we to say he didn't. Had you or Mr. Markham been WW1 balloon observers , I would be more impressed with your opinions about what could, or couldn't, be seen from a balloon.
Interestingly, the historian David Bashhow has said Weirter could have seen much further than was previously thought. Someone else on this forum has said the same thing.
The fact that Weirter did't paint a very good Nieuport is no reason to call him a liar. He was, in fact, a British serviceman who claimed to have witnessed the raid. So to say the raid was not witnessed is a bit much. You could call any witness for any victory a liar if you wanted to.
Anyway, we have gone far off the mark here. I started this hoping someone could tell us exactly what Weirter said or wrote. Perhaps nothing survives.

Billy_Bishop · 22 December 2005, 06:14 AM

Well, here we go again. As much as I would absolutely LOVE see this observation accepted at face value, we have to realize that those on the doubting side of the fence on this argument are not going to be swayed by the "he was there, you weren't" part of the argument.

David Bashow, author of "Knights of the Air, Candian Fighter Pilots in WWI," did something similar with his argument at "ALL fighter pilots over claim." Then of course, there's the argument by some that Bishop claimed he saw/shot down Albatros D2's when everyone else is convinced the D3s had completely replaced the D2s by then. (2 June, 1917)

The beauty of hindsight is we all know what a D2 and a D3 looked like. Never mind that put in the same shoes as the pilot in the middle of an attack, he might not be too concerned with such details as whether or not the enemy planes had V struts or two I struts.

But some people expect aces to be perfect. They're not allowed to make mistakes in identifying enemy aircraft.

All I can say is, GOOD LUCK!

castiglione · 22 December 2005, 06:58 AM

But some people expect aces to be perfect. They're not allowed to make mistakes in identifying enemy aircraft.

-----------------------------------

Misidentification can easily happen in the "heat of the moment".

To make things worse, war-time designations of enemy craft were often inaccurate. I don't have any WWI examples but WWII examples abound, i.e. the British often referred to the Focke-Wulf as the "Fokker Wulf", the Germans often referred to American built planes (and planes they believed were American built) as the "Curtis", the first time the Ki-61 was encountered in combat by the Americans, it was referred to as a Me109, the AVG constantly referred to the Japanese Army Ki-43's they encountered in combat as Zeros (even though they never encountered any Zeros in combat), and they also referred to a Japanese Army twin-engine fighter (can't remember the name) as the Me110. German pilots also constantly mixed up Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, German pilots also did not notice the big ol' turret on the Defiant (which is pretty hard not to notice when you're gazing at a picture of it as opposed to flying for your life in the air) which accounted for the early success of that dud.

On the other hand, I doubt Bishop was at 5,000 ft in his engagement at the German aerodrome or that he climbed to 5,000 ft afterwards. He had to have been low to have done what he did and I doubt he would have wasted valuable time climbing to 5,000 ft when possibly every neighboring aerodrome was being contacted by telephone as to the presence of an impudent British Nieuport in the area...he probably would have scooted home as fast as possible at tree-top level as fast as the 110 Le Rhone on his Nieuport could take him.

Billy_Bishop · 22 December 2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by castiglione

On the other hand, I doubt Bishop was at 5,000 ft in his engagement at the German aerodrome or that he climbed to 5,000 ft afterwards. He had to have been low to have done what he did and I doubt he would have wasted valuable time climbing to 5,000 ft when possibly every neighboring aerodrome was being contacted by telephone as to the presence of an impudent British Nieuport in the area...he probably would have scooted home as fast as possible at tree-top level as fast as the 110 Le Rhone on his Nieuport could take him.

According to his combat report, the attack took place at varying heights, less than 1000 feet, according to Maj. Scot's report, between 40 and 1,000 feet. And afterward, he flew up to 4000 feet, staying 1,000 feet below a flight of enemy scouts who were at 5,000 feet. I can only presume he thought he would not be spotted that way.