Lothar Richthofen and Albert Ball

[Kirk R. Lowry]

I agree that the considerations published by Bowyer, in Albert Ball VC, and Revell, in High in the Empty Blue or British Single-Seater Fighter Squadrons on the Western Front in World War I, are reasonable: both doubt that von Richthofen was responsible for sending down Ball, but, neither states outright that it was not so.

As I wrote previously it is only supposition that Ball became disoriented and crashed as a result. It is oft noted that a witness of the crash, Franz Hailer saw the S.E.5 emerge from cloud inverted to strike the earth, but, to quote Bowyer, "Hailer, through his field binoculars, saw Ball's SE5 emerge from low cloud, upside down, its propeller stopped, and trailing a thin plume of black, oily smoke, descending in a shallow dive" which would certainly seem to describe an aircraft about to crash following aerial combat. No, we do not know what was happening in the cockpit, but, there is a significant body of evidence to indicate that the crash came about as a result of combat with von Richthofen.

To quote Revell (from High in the Empty Blue), "Ball dived on an Albatros scout, getting in a good burst before overshooting. Crowe followed and also attacked the enemy machine-almost certainly flown by Lothar von Richthofen ... As Crowe turned for another pass he saw Ball was already making another attack on the Albatros, and he also noticed a Spad and a Naval Triplane some 500 feet above the action. Ball and the Albatros, still fighting, flew into a thick bank of cloud".

As well as Crowe, another witness saw some of the battle, that being Wilhelm Allmenröder who wrote, and is quoted by Kilduff in Germany's First Air Force 1914-1918, "I looked around and saw, about 200 metres below me, Lothar in a wild, circling dogfight with a British fighter". The account is quite descriptive. Allmenröder related how, following a " third frontal attack, Lothar came from the south and his opponent from the north ... This time, Lothar's opponent did not give way sideways, but dived down to the ground. I had wanted to see where the aircraft crashed, but I became anxious because Lothar also went down in a rather steep turn and disappeared in the mist".

Other officially recorded witnesses, as noted by Bowyer, stated the following; Hepner: "Saw a triplane fall out of control", Flakgruppe 22: "Saw a triplane shot down", Kite Balloon Section 22: "saw English machine crash near Faschoda and saw German machine land near Bauvin".

We have witnesses to the combat, both British and German, and witnesses to the crash. Two of the witnesses, Allmenröder and Kite Balloon Section 22 offer descriptions which do not vary from what most would acknowledge are accepted facts. If anyone wants to say that we do not know for certain why Albert Ball crashed fatally, fine, that is so, however, for the standards of the day there is certainly enough evidence for Lothar von Richthofen to have filed a claim and to have had the claim confirmed.

Salut!
Kirk

[CORVUS]

Originally Posted by Kirk R. Lowry

Other officially recorded witnesses, as recorded by Bowyer, stated the following; Hepner: "Saw a triplane fall out of control", Flakgruppe 22: "Saw a triplane shot down", Kite Balloon Section 22: "saw English machine crash near Faschoda and saw German machine land near Bauvin".

Here's what I read in the Red Air fighter with additional material by Norman Franks and N.H. Hauprich.

Captain Ball flew a Triplane and encountered my brother flying by himself at the Front.
Each tried to catch the other. Neither gave his opponent a chance. Every encounter was a short one. They were constantly dashing at one another. Neither succeeded in getting behind the other. Suddenly both resolved to fire a few well -aimed shots during the few moments of the encounter. Both rushed at one another and fired. Both had before them their engine. The probability of a hit was very small, for the celerity of motion is twice as great as normal. It was improbable that either should succeed. My brother , who was a little lower, had pulled his machine around too hard, and the result was that it overturned. For a moment his aeroplane became uncontrollable. But presently he recovered control, and found out that his opponent had smashed both his petrol tanks. Therefore he had to stop the engine and land quickly. Otherwise, his machine might burst into flames.

His next idea was: What had become of my opponent ? At the moment when his machine turned it's somersault he had seen that the enemy's machine was rearing up in the air,and had also turned somersault. He therefore could not be far away. His whole thought was : Is he above me or beneath me? He was not above - he saw the Triplane falling down in a series of somersaults. It fell, fell, fell until it came to the ground, where it was smashed to pieces. This happened in German territory. Both opponents had during the brief moment of the encounter hit one another with their machine guns. My brother's machine had both benzine tanks smashed ,and at the same moment Captain Ball had been shot through the head. He carried with him some photographs and cuttings from newspapers of his town, where he had been greatly feted.

Editors note:

"There is some curious error here, for Captain Ball was not flying a Triplane at the time of his death. It seems probable that someone else shot Captain Ball on the same day, and that, as the younger Richthofen was disabled, and so could not go and identify the wreckage of Captain Ball's machine ,the credit was given to Richthofen in default of anyone else making a claim."

My comments:

Lothar claimed a Triplane and later authorities , with Lothar's consent, amended the report claiming it must have been Captain Ball.

According to one of the earlier posts Captain Ball was not hit and only suffered physical damage from the crash. It was also stated earlier that Captain Ball went into a cloud bank so it was impossible for Lothar to see him actually crash. Two of the witnesses claim to have seen a Triplane spinning out of control. This maneuver was typical in trying to escape. Did anyone else claim to have shot down a Sopwith Triplane that day? Apparently not. Or did any Triplanes claim an Albatross.

My initial question was whether this mystery has been resolved. It would appear that based on all these learned comments this inigma will continue to haunt this web site until new evidence makes itself available.

Lou

[alex_revell]

OK Kirk. I'll say it now. Lothar did not kill Ball. Manfred von R's account is pure fiction - plus a fair amount of wishful thinking. Ball was not flying a triplane,nor was he shot in the head. Hailer stated that there was no evidence that Ball's SE had been in aerial combat. It had no damage to suggest that. The result of the crash can be ascertained from the evidence. An aeroplane comes out of a thick cloud at 200 feet, upside down, with the engine stopped. Very few pilots of the day - if any - would have had the knowledge to recover from that position. Ball died as a result of the crash, not from being shot, or because his SE was out of control because of combat damage. The German doctor's report confirms the cause of death.
Lothar had a fight with a Naval triplane, which spun down out of trouble. Lothar didn't see it crash. Later, he learns that Ball has crashed in the vicinity. Ergo: It wasn't a triplane I was fighting, it was a biplane. I'll put in a claim. Let's send someone down tomorrow to fire some bullets into the wreck (Hailer's account) to make sure.
I really don't know why people want to make a mystery out of such things, when the evidence is there. What more do people want. It's just the same with endless speculations about the death of von R. From the medical evidence alone, he was shot down by groundfire - simple as that. Who fired the fatal shot? What does it matter? Anyone of probably a couple of hundred Aussies, all having a go. It's time it was given a rest. Few people here seem to be interested in how Mannock was killed. But then, I suppose, he has not been elevated to near legendary status over the years, was not a German, and was not claimed by a famous German fighter pilot. No glamour there. No gallant knight falling from the sky in a brightly painted aeroplane. Just the second best fighter pilot of the war, that's all.
Night all

[Southside Bucky]

Originally Posted by alex_revell

Just the second best fighter pilot of the war, that's all.
Night all

Number one being Rene Fonck of course...

[Kirk R. Lowry]

Originally Posted by alex_revell

OK Kirk. I'll say it now.

Alex!

I was wondering, having been certain that there would be a response, if you were on holiday.

I concur on many points.

Certainly the volume attributed to Manfred von Richthofen is, at best, a questionalble source of information. Personally I doubt that the man wrote more than some notes which were expanded upon by publishers and, therefore, refrained from referring to that book in the postings made. It is amazing how frequently the volume is quoted.

We all engage in semantic campaigns over The Aerodrome and I will admit to being a participant in just such an endeavor. One may say that Lothar von Richthofen did not kill Albert Ball and I will not argue as the man did not die from a bullet wound. However, there is evidence to indicate that the two men did engage in a lengthy combat ... von Richthofen was forced to land after all ... the victory can be attributed to Ball. We know that Ball crashed after the combat and was killed so von Richthofen is entitled to the claim and the confirmation. Someone can speculate that disorientation was the ultimate cause, but, then again, someone can speculate that disorientation was a result of combat. Frankly, I do not see a contradiction between the combat that occured and the submission of a claim, but, in this case perhaps we should admit that vision is obscured ... it was a dark an stormy night after all ...

Thank You For The Response Alex
Salut!
Kirk

[R Gannon]

Kirk

All due respects, but the account by MvR was not first hand and looks all the world tailored to the propanda angle, whilst W Allmenroder writing in hindsight is my opinion complimenting what MvR wrote. I also believe Reginald Broad was the 8 Naval Triplane pilot involved in this fighting and he came home ok!

Regards Russ.

[theboy]

Originally Posted by RussGannon

Kirk

All due respects, but the account by MvR was not first hand and looks all the world tailored to the propanda angle, whilst W Allmenroder writing in hindsight is my opinion complimenting what MvR wrote. I also believe Reginald Broad was the 8 Naval Triplane pilot involved in this fighting and he came home ok!

Regards Russ.

The triplane was piloted by Flight Sub-Lieutenant Reginald Rhys Soar, 8 Naval Squadron. He also came hope safe that day.

[Kirk R. Lowry]

Bonjour Russ, theboy et al

As indicated I do not believe that The Red Battle Flier or whatever we choose to call that book should be considered a reliable source nor do I believe that Manfred von Richthofen was involved in the editing of the text that was ultimately published.

I do not know the publishing history of the Wilhelm Allmenröder writing so cannot offer comment other than to say that upon reading the words do not have the air of propaganda.

Do we agree that Albert Ball and Lothar von Richthofen actually met in combat? Was von Richthofen forced to land by Ball? If the action did take place it is certainly reasonable to assume that von Richthofen played a role in the fatal crash of Ball.

I certainly do not see the point in becoming embroiled in a you say, I say situation (as does happen happen from time to time at The Aerodrome) when we will never know with certitude just what did happen, so I will land to allow one of you to have the last word ...

Salut mes amis!
Kirk

[CORVUS]

Originally Posted by theboy

The triplane was piloted by Flight Sub-Lieutenant Reginald Rhys Soar, 8 Naval Squadron. He also came hope safe that day.

Is there a flight report from this or any other Sopwith Pilot of that day which might help shed some light.


Lou

[alex_revell]

Kirk, When I interviewed Crowe he told me that, regardless of his combat report he did not follow Ball into the cloud. Don't forget, this was not just a cloud, but a very dangerous storm cloud - the term escapes me for the moment. Crowe told me that there was no way that he would have taken the risk of flying into such a cloud and thought Ball extremely foolish to have done so. If you think that Lothar was entitled to a victory because Ball and he flew, fighting, into such a cloud, then fine.
Southside Bucky. No! what a strange idea!!