MVR: 75 not 80?

Southside Bucky · 3 January 2006, 06:46 PM

Hi Guys.

While perusing the excellent little book I got for xmas titled

In The Footsteps Of The Red Baron by Mike O'Connor & Norman Franks, I noticed a passage regarding MVR's 54th, in which the term 'victory' (Note the inverted coma's) was used.

This related to a combat between MVR and 2nd Lt

Robert Wallace Farquhar of 23 Sqn RFC, who although said by MVR in his combat report to have fell smoking and out of control, actually got his damaged but repairable Spad 7 (B1530) back to base! This, in my view can't be counted as a victory.

This piqued my interest, so I located my copy of "Under The Guns Of The Red Baron" by Franks, Giblin, and McCrery, which I went through, and found a few other disputable 'victories'

The following are all very dubious to say the least:

No.15 on 27th of December 1916,

No.21 on 14th February 1917,

No.22 on 4th March 1917,

No.45 on 16th April 1917.

No.54 on 23rd of June '17 (As noted above)

I've no wish to belittle MVR's wartime achievements, or besmirch his reputation, but in my eyes he's a 75 victory ace, not 80.

Look them up and see what you think.

All the best.

Bucky.

3 January 2006, 08:27 PM

Hi Bucky,

A person's view on the total number of victories that ANY pilot achieved depends on whether he or she accepts the officially credited total given by the respective nation. MvR was officially credited with 80 victories by the German Military High Command, so he did achieve 80 victories. Because of this, you really cannot compare him to let's say,

Rene Fonck, as the French used a totally different system of accreditation.

Now if we factor in the rather new approach of matching a victory to a respective loss, one can determine that certain victories may have been without merit. This would effect most if not all the aces, and their scores would most surely be reduced. This is because most pilots over-claimed, whether by design or mistake.

I am not saying that this sort of research doesn't have merit, but I am less enthusiastic then others about it's overall worth to our hobby. Personal opinion taints this practice, as we sometimes only have a small piece of the puzzle by which to base our assumptions on. To do it properly, one would need the order of battle for the day in question, a good map of the area as it was during 1914-1918, the radius of action of the units involved, all the units flying that day, etc. It is a monumental task and because of all the above, should be taken only as a suggestion.

This is why I will recognize the official scores of these pilots, and perform the 'matching game' only as a leisurely pastime; not putting too much stock into the results. It is fun to do after all!

Just my opinion,

Darren

Barrett · 3 January 2006, 09:22 PM

Concur with WW. Unless and until we access The Great Celestial Computer to review all combat results, there's no point in "revising" just the few for which there's full data. In any case, "only" 75 out of 80 is an extremely high ratio unlikely to be matched by anyone else in that lofty realm. How many of Fonck's official 75 were valid? We'll never know, but he'd need 70 to beat MvR's percentage. We alreay know that Rickenbacker destroyed no more than 9 airborne planes/balloons, and that's more typical than many folks would surmise.

Laserlloyd · 3 January 2006, 10:37 PM

We can also talk about the couple of planes MvR didn't get cerdit for.

Lloyd...

RED BARON RETURNS · 3 January 2006, 10:49 PM

What happened in 1918 stays in 1918......
No matter how hard you try to take a plane or two away from the ace of aces of WW1 ....
Germany still has the ace of all aces..... Eric Hartmann 352 v/c in WW2.
Later Days
JEP
RED BARON RETURNS

Southside Bucky · 4 January 2006, 07:48 AM

Thanks for your replies fella's.

The general consensus seems to be: There's little or no point in trying to revise or re-assess what really happened.

Sorry, but I don't agree. I know that MVR will forever be credited with his 80 victories, and that's OK, but my interest in MVR and all aspects of WW1 aviation compells me to find out the facts where possible.

Until relatively recently you'd have to spend most of your life (and money) to find the kind of information that the internet and the inexhaustable efforts of great researchers like Norman Franks et al, puts at our disposal.

For the first time since WW1 it allows us the opportunity to scrutinise and sometimes refute official reports and accepted wisdom. To me this is a great thing.

Wether or not other people agree with your own findings is another matter though eh?

Regards.

Bucky.

Billy_Bishop · 4 January 2006, 08:05 AM

IF MvR did send someone DOOC, as you say, then that's still a victory. Maybe not by the NORMAL German rules, but he did win.

Even the USAF said 1918 stays 1918, even though they did that Historical Study. As they said, their study was not to change any pilot's WWI score, it was to determine exactly how many enemy aircraft were actually destroyed, versus the number of victory credits that were awarded.

If you want to think in YOUR mind that MvR has 75 and not 80, that is of course, your choice, just as I know some like to think that Bishop has less than 72 victories. And yet some like to think Mannock actually has 73, or Luke has 21, or ad nauseum. None of this will change the "official" count, so have at it.

For me, the scores are as they are. MvR has 80, Bishop has 72, and so on.

But that's just my humble opinion.

Barrett · 4 January 2006, 09:17 AM

Hair Splitting Dept.

Al, USAF Study 33 (IIRC) was not intended to determine the number of e/a destroyed in WW I, but to determine the actual number of victory credits. Since the USAS credited claims as obtuse as "dived east" and "last seen in vertical bank", not to mention OOCs, the number of smoking holes in the ground was far, far fewer than the total "score".

Southside Bucky · 4 January 2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy_Bishop

IF MvR did send someone DOOC, as you say, then that's still a victory. Maybe not by the NORMAL German rules, but he did win.

I used the term 'out of control' for brevity. What MVR's actual combat report states is:

"At first the plane began to smoke, then fell, turning and turning to the ground, two kilometres north of Ypres, without having been caught".

That sounds pretty inconclusive to me.

Using that kind of logic Billy, any pilot who landed back at their aerodrome with minor and repairable combat damage to their plane should be considered to have been shot down!

I've been into WW1 aviation and MVR for the last 25 years or so, yet I've only just picked up on these arguable victories of his. It just shows what an endlessly fascinating subject it is.

It's all about the quest for knowledge I suppose. It means the next time someone asks me: How many planes did MVR shoot down? I'll be able to say; 80, but...

All the best.

Bucky.

stephen · 4 January 2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southside Bucky

The general consensus seems to be: There's little or no point in trying to revise or re-assess what really happened.

Ah, but what really happened and a pilot's official victory score can never be truly reconciled. That doesn't mean each study does not have its place - on the contrary, I find them very interesting. But there is not enough existing data to reconcile them.

So I'm all for reassessing what happened, but trying to accurately revise a pilot's victory score remains a fool's errand.