Bishop and his areodrome attack

[stephen]

Where's Al when we need him?

[Barrett]

* And, to paraphrase Nimitz to Halsey:
Where, repeat, where is Shooter?
Turkey trots to water the world wonders. *

[Shooter]

* And, to paraphrase Nimitz to Halsey:
Where, repeat, where is Shooter?
Turkey trots to water the world wonders. *

I am glad that you included the information on that message, Barrett. Some of us might not know its origins.

I am back. Thank you for asking. The rest of the story is over in the Off Topic section.

Now, as far as the "great debate" over the VC mission of the kid that couldn't miss has not been visited in some time and perhaps it needs to again be aired out. Al is always coming up with new tidbits of info that few others dig up, and as Billy's advocate he needs to again show that his wit and wisdom are untarnished.


Shooter sends.

PS: Al...you're on!

What aerodrome attack?

[Richard_Schrader]

Baron;
Old Billy would never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

Richard Schrader

Glad to see you again Shooter . Sorry to hear about your medical troubles mate , hope your back firing on all cylinders soon .
First I'd like to say I'm not a Bishop fan ..or champion . Infact BB takes up almost none of my thoughts .
But I'd just like to say something I brought up with Al Lowe a while back . I asked if Bishop had ever been found to be a cheat and a liar in any of his business or personal dealings in his life ( other than his war claims ) . It seems to me you can go round and round about the Aerodrome attack for years , but without further evidence for or against , It will be very hard to prove anything either way . But for me , if a person was capable of totally fabricating something like the attack , and was cunning enough to shoot holes in his own kite ....well , that would mean that deep down he had a certain animal cunning...or to put it plainer ...a leopard don't change his spots , if he is cabable of doing something so dishonest once ..then he will do it again ...sooner or later .
Al answered my querie by saying that as far as he knew , noone had ever had cause to accuse Bishop of dishonest dealings in his civilian life . I'd like to know if anyone has conflicting evidence to that ??.
I was aware also of the discrepancy between claims and German losses for the war . but reasontly on the forum a gentleman put the figure at 6-1 . So does that mean that everyone of our favorite aces ...or most of them was " a cheat and a liar ? ". Nope it dosen't ..and no matter what the figures are ..there's no getting away from the fact that the Allied Air Services were an offensive weapon ..not a defensive one...and air superiority is the cornerstone to winning any battle .
If you want my gut feeling on it . Bishop was even more over optimistic than many other Allied pilots ...and for that he had fame in his life , which he probably didn't deserve, and now a black mark against his name for eternity ...some of which he probably dosen't derserve either .
Anyway..there ya go ..that was alot of two finger typing ...so i'm going to claim 6 O.O.C. victory's for this mission ...heh heh .
Phil.

[Vigilant]

Well, I have just read the 2002 Bishop thread and it didn't take 8 hours - more like 7! Some very interesting & knowledgeable contributions there, particularly from Hugh Halliday and Tom Cervo.

I am amazed that people are still prepared to stand by Bishop's word when it is painfully apparent that he wore a decoration to which he was not entitled (the 1914-15 Star) and was regarded by numerous contemporaries as a shameless line-shooter and medal hunter.

My synthesis of the evidence is this:

(1) Bishop believes that when his CO, Maj. Scott, recommended him for his DSO there was also talk of a VC. He feels getting the VC would be rather a GOOD THING. Pulling off a spectacular feat of arms might be enough to make his application go through. This is likely to be the case whether he is leader of the operation or sole protagonist. Accordingly, he determines to strafe an enemy aerodrome. He asks his deputy flight commander, Lt. Fry, if he wants to bring his dawn patrol in on this. Fry is not enthusiastic, as the plan seems half-baked, but in any case his dawn patrol is washed out due to dud weather.

(2) Bishop (being as all sides admit a BRAVE MAN) sets off before first light intending to do the attack alone. There is low cloud and rain.

(3) Unfortunately, the enemy aerodrome he has targeted is deserted when he reaches it.

(4) Looking for another one to attack he becomes uncertain of his position owing to the semi-darkness on the ground and poor visibility. Flying in these conditions is nerve-racking and difficult.

(5) He accordingly flies West for 20 miles on his compass (sufficient to be certain of crossing the lines) but still cannot locate his position. In frustration, he lands in a suitable area with the intention of asking a French peasant "Pouvez-vous m'aider? Je suis perdu. Je cherche mon aerodrome." Schoolboy French. Not difficult.

(6) When he lands there is no-one in sight. He cuts the engine and walks. He walks for several minutes without finding anyone. He realises it's the old Somme battlefield and the area is deserted. He'll just have to wait for first light and then try and pick up a landmark.

(7) Then an idea occurs to him. Bishop knows he would have shot up an enemy aerodrome if he could have found one. He's morally entitled to a gong. Why not add some colour to his story when he gets back to the squadron?

(8) He unships the Lewis gun (using a pocket knife to unscrew the Bowden cable) and puts a few well-placed rounds through the elevators and wings. This will become "ground fire". He inspects the airframe to make sure it hasn't suffered any damage. (If it had he would just have had to walk to civilization and tell the recovery crew it was a "precautionary landing". No harm done.)

(9) For some reason he is unable to refit the Lewis to the rail. Perhaps he has damaged the fittings by removing it without using the proper tools? This is unforeseen, but maybe he can think of an explanation before he reaches base ... "not thinking straight after the attack - needed to go faster - threw it over the side - save weight..." It's thin, but Maj. Scott won't ask too many questions. He's hoping to get made up to Lt-Col. and get a job at Wing. He'll support Bishop's story and recommend him for a gong.

(10) He puts a couple of rocks under the wheels and restarts the machine (not without a little difficulty). Ducking under the wing he jumps into the cockpit, opens the throttle to overcome the makeshift chocks and gets back into the air.

(11) He picks up some landmarks in the faint light and heads back to 60 Squadron, thinking of the story he will shortly need to tell. A little white lie he tells himself. I could be the next Ball!

(12) As for the VC, Maj. Scott knows some influential people at 3rd Army, and RFC HQ is feeling the need for some positive press what with questions in Parliament and bombs falling with impunity on London. They are inclined to approve it in circumstances that might ordinarily cause them to downgrade it to a bar on Bishop's MC.

Let me have your opinions - I'm sure you will!

Vig.

[Zif]

Hey !

Isn't it a bit too much !?

[Shooter]

Hey ! *

Isn't it a bit too much !?

*scratches head* I dunno. As compared with what?

Black September:
Thanks for the good wishes. But I will go you one better, Blackie. I have met up with a lotta blowhard a$$holes who were also decorated vets. They blew their own horns when others would have been happy to make the sounds for them, and when really humble men so favored by fate would have preferred not to hear that music at all. I found them distasteful and avoided their company when they bellied up to the bar at the SNCO Club (a particularly distasteful first sergeant who had been awarded the MoH during the SE Asia troubles out at the MCRD San Diego comes to mind), but I would never once declare them utter liars.

That is fundamentally what some here at the Forum have done with WAB. Those who did not declare him liar seemed to indicate that he wore laurels that belonged to other men (or at least were not his to wear).

Until we all have strapped a fighter plane to our asses and taken to the Wild Blue, we should all do well to remember that all those drivers made a death-defying gesture each time they did just that. That is courage, mates. Courage of that nature deserves a certain measure of respect. I will not be the one to deny such respect to a hero like Billy Bishop. Y'all can pot away at him, if that floats yer boat. Al Lowe does a better job of his defense than I--Al would make quite a barrister if he took silk at the Queens Bench, wot?


Shooter sends

[Vigilant]

I know where you're coming from, Shooter, and I assure you it gives me no pleasure to criticise Bishop. I would rather believe he was the 'real deal' but I cannot honestly do so having heard the evidence. There's no point dressing it up or tip-toeing round it. If Bishop didn't do the raid, he lied. And it seems quite likely that he did.

One new piece of evidence that cannot be ignored is Wing Commander Fry's own belief (published in 2001 in Cross & Cockade 32/1) that Bishop DID shoot holes in his own machine and DID fabricate his account of what happened. Now Fry most certainly did strap on a fighter and was a first hand witness of everything that happened at Izel le Hameau on 1/2 June 1917.

Regards

Vig.