Sorting Myth from Fact- The Aces.

[redintheskies]

it does seem like all of the great stories, of which we are told are true, are not the truth after all.

albert ball, if i remember correctly, lost control over his plane in a cloud...was disoriented...and crashed. lothar von richthofen, although credited with the "kill", did not shoot him down although he was the nearest to ball when he crashed. the germans even "proved" that the younger von richthofen shot him down by shooting the wreckage and then claiming it theirs.

the "eagles of lille", meanwhile, lost his life to a british fe2, not the gear like everyone like to say it was. fokker, of course, was denying every bit of it and did not wish negative press about his planes, of which was understandable. at the same time, he was lost in combat.

i don't remember the rest, but if i do, will surely contribute...

[Old Man]

Originally Posted by redintheskies

the "eagles of lille", meanwhile, lost his life to a british fe2, not the gear like everyone like to say it was. fokker, of course, was denying every bit of it and did not wish negative press about his planes, of which was understandable. at the same time, he was lost in combat.

i don't remember the rest, but if i do, will surely contribute...

Not that I wish to fight, Sir, but there is a photograph identified as the wreckage of Lt. Immelmann's Fokker E-IV in fairly wide circulation, and if that identification is correct, the photograph clearly shows a propellor blade shot through at the gun-line. This sort of accident was not un-heard of, and there are many ways for the gear to get out of whack, and put bullets in, rather than between, the blades. The breaking of fuselage longerons which snapped the tail off his machine is quite consistent with the effects of the vibration of an unbalanced propellor on the fuselage structure. He was certainly being fired at by Cpl. McCubbin, and the latter's report of shooting down a Fokker was certainly made in good faith, as was the confirmation, and the standard of 'I was shooting at him, and down he went" is sufficient to my mind to sustain allotting 'credit' to that young man for the victory. But I do think it is pretty well established that Lt. Immelmann's synchronizer malfunctioned, on the basis of that photograph.

[redintheskies]

it could be sir, it could be. things can be deceiving, and most certainly, some accounts can be incorrect although they were considered the truth for years. the eagle of lille may have had an accident. the only picture i saw of his plane after his crash was the 1 in which the german personal was around and i saw no propeller broken...then again, it was not shown.

then again, there were many controversies in the death of aces in this war. they still are debating the red baron's death but think they have found the man who shot him. will send the link if i could.

and, dear comrade, i am no sir. miss, please. i am just a 19 year old college student into history. LOL

[RussGannon]

Pete

Re the Ball v LvR myth. It has similarities to the MvR demise; where the RAF who had suffered so much at his hands, were keen to credit MvR to one of their boys. Much the same with the Fliegertruppe, who were keen for propaganda purposes to credit Ball to one of the Von Richthofen's. You can bet that those who cling to this take, have never consulted either HITEB or Ball VC - being by British writers, they are seen as near heretical texts. But if they did then they would know that Ball died soley of crash injuries and that his SE had not sustained battle damage in the air - as Redentheskies correctly points out German flying personnel visited the wreck and fired bullets into it, so to give the LvR claim (invalid against a 8 Naval Sop Tripe) credence.

Back to the Barker fight. Isn't it funny that one can draw similar parallels to Barker & Voss - ie both about 50 victories & both ended their careers in an against the odds fight. Even if it were only 15 Fokkers (about what Js 24 & 44 would have fielded), it still stands as an epic fight. Yet it seems within our fraternity all eyes are turned to Voss. And then of course there is this uncharitable bias, which is unwilling to even give credence to this the WELL WITNESSED fight (what were British AA and ground troops collectively lying?) simply because there is no apparent confirmation in the very incomplete German record!!!!!!

Onto Bishop - I think most pragmatic enthusiats have long doubted Bishop. Indeed it is clear that the likes of Taffy Jones doubted him at the time. In another thread I highlighted that 49 of his 'victories' were unwitnessed - when he accidently on purpose lost his fellow flyers. The remainder were made up of 13 OOC & 5 dest (2 shared) - which I would say was about the true measure of the man. Clearly he was ego driven. One might say that after the award of his VC on 8 June 17 (for the 2 June raid) he was under pressure to perform - to outscore Ball's score in the 3 months remaing in his tour. And naturally he did. Then of course he came back for one month to lead 85 Sqn into action. By that time JTB had eclipsed Ball with 57 Vics, so Bishop naturally had to top that in the time given to him.

One point, I don't buy the myth about Bishop & Ball discussing the aerodrome attack. I think Bishop's inspiration was a now little known effort by Lt HE Ellis of 40 Sqn on 4 May 17. He attacked a formation of Alb Scts attempting to land on an aerodrome to the south of Douai - he crashed one, forced another to force land on the drome and stand on its nose and then dog fought a third which went down in pieces. This however was probably no figment of imagination as a Vfw Franz of Js 33 was wia (dow 7 May) in Alb DIII 2067/17 in a fight Erchin to Sailly - Erchin is just NW of Villers-au-Terte the Js 33 aerodrome! All locations just south of Douai!!!!

Talking about myths - one can also draw a parallel between Bishop's 2 Jun 17 aaerodrome raid and Eduard von Schleich's 8 May 18 flight of fantasy. In this he supposedly single handedly attacked a formation of 6 SE5's over the British side of the lines (Auchenvillers) claiming and being credited with 3 of them!!! Like the Bishop effort, there is no evidence on the British side to support this feat!

Cheers Russ





I was going to say but Redentheskies beat me to the punch

[rammjaeger]

# Did Max Immelmann perish when his Eindecker's Interruptor-Gear failed?

Pete, you can find tons of - much more detailed - threads about the "case Immelmann" at the Aerodrome. (This thread can not present all the required details.)

You could have asked as well:
Did Max Immelmann perish when he was hit by the German Flak? OR
Did Max Immelmann perish when he was fighting a British airplane?

- These are the other "myth" or opportunities of his death, not named before.

No modern historian has ever done any research comparable to Franks/Bennett research of MvR´s demise. Also a comprehensive critical review of the three main scenarios (and some other opportunities!) was not done until now. There is no final proof existing for one of these theories.
Different researchers and aviation enthusiasts take their choice and follow one of the main theories. It seems to me that a majority - also of high-rated historians - is believing in the "failure of the interruptor"-reason. Clear, men of the Commonwealth are more often in favour of the "shot down"-theory.

In the "case Immelmann" the British side was assuming the German Fliegertruppe did lie about the cause of Immelmanns loss. The other way around the Germans thought the British "manufactured" a victory claim for Immelmann. Everybody knows: "The enemy is always lying!"

In spite of the unsolved case you will discover very often articles, books or individuals claiming to know with 100% that interruptor gear/ Flak/British aviators were responsible for Max´death. It is just that - a claim and no final proof available. IMHO it is too early for a final decision. A lot more of research is necessary.

Redintheskies, you did either look at a picture of very bad quality or you did not look careful enough. The damage is obvious.
By the way Fokker refused the synchronisation failure and blamed the German Flak - every business man will do the same if his products come in miscredit.

I am collecting and analyzing material about Immelmann´s death since many, many years and I think I know what I am talking about. By the way there is a 4th scenario existing (No, I am not telling more about current research. Don´t try to ask).

[rammjaeger]

Mr Gannon,

you claimed very noisy to have the ultimative knowledge and proof concerning Barkers 4 victims. Until now you made only 2 guesses.
I am eagerly waiting for the other 2 suggestions. Then I will comment.

[RussGannon]

Pete

As I understand it only two complete Jasta KTB's (war diaries) have survived intact. These are for Js 24 & Js 35, both of which are in the old C&C US (kindly presented by Rick Duiven). Now I would like to zero in on Js 35 in Aug 17 to make a seminal point. We are told that on 13 Aug 17 Ltn Wendland made a forced landing as the result of a combat and then on 25 Aug 17 Vfw Knocke also survived a combat related FTL which saw his Albatros written off. Now you will find neither of these in the KOFL 4 returns for Aug 17 - which whilst informative, only lists personnel losses. Now the present picture of German losses found in the Grub St corpus of books, is primarily derived from surviving KOFL returns and various post WW1 lists of fallen German airmen. The point is that these sources do not list combat related downings (like those above) which did not result in personnel loses; which in turn means that lists compiled from them DO NOT provide the full picture. So it is ludicrous, bordering on ignorant, to deny Allied claims simply on the basis that one cannot find confirmation in the present wisdom of the Grub St corpus.

Another good example comes from Js 24, where on 27 July 17 its staffelfuhrer Kroll survived being shot down in flames - his Albatros a write off. Yey again you will find no mention of this in either the Jasta War Chronicle or CotGAS - bibles to so many Germanophiles. And the researcher who is prepared to do the hard yards of grass roots level research will find dozens more German downing's that are not listed in these informative but far from complete compilations.

And nothing irks me more than Germanophile writters, who routinely make the sweeping statement that 'there were no German losses' in relation to airfights. The safest thing one could say is that 'There are no known German losses.'

You have to ask yourself: what if we had all the intact Jasta KTB's? I'm certain if they suddenly came to light, then the present picture of Jasta losses would blow out between 30 & 50 %.

Cheers Russ

[RussGannon]

Rammjaeger

As you are feeling brave enough to put your head above the parapet - read carefully what I say and don't put words into my mouth. I have not claimed ultimate knowledge or proof - these are your noisy words. I have simply offered THREE possible German losses which might fit the WELL WITNESSED Barker fight. I don't think anyone is lying or manufacturing anything, the problem lies with the incomplete German record.

Comment anytime - it would be great to see you commit to something more solid than your haughty unsubstanciated opinions.

As we are being so formal

Gannon.

[Southside Bucky]

Absolutely, Russ...All the noise is coming from the opposite corner. But, as ever, it's all bark and no bite.

You made your point very well.

Regards.

Bucky

[rammjaeger]

Russ Gannon, you did just run into your own trap!

May I give a you a little reminder?

I wrote:

However, some of the other questions are probably unsolvable with the current knowledge. Now, 90+ years after the war even well-researched cases are providing room for different opinions because modern forensic medicine was not existing in this time, witnesses are dead and many contemporary documents are lost. The result will be the exchange of more or less well-founded opinions about the different cases. And that is not enough to cope with myth.

Then you attacked in your typical arrogant manner:

“… we can dispel the many myths that still dominate the WW 1 air [sic] - they may be beyond the current knowledge of some [sic] - but the knowledge is there [sic] for those prepared to do the hard yards in research."

First, it is nonsense to claim that myth are still dominating [sic] WW1 air war history. It is only your own, a bit twisted opinion.
Second, you were claiming “the knowledge is there” – that implies you have all the knowledge to dissolve all these cases. Lines like these – and you made similar statements in the past again and again – give everybody the impression you would be the owner of the “Holy Grail” of WWI aviation.

Now, you were downgrading your claims and saying you were only making suggestions. Obviously you were suddenly realizing that I am right with my opinion. However, you will never admit. No doubt, current knowledge is not enough to get final proof (e.g because German sources are lost or distributed over the whole world - but there are also other reasons existing).

You did confirm my first statement which was – by the way – also welcomed by other members of the Forum.

Q.E.D.