Sorting Myth from Fact- The Aces.

[rammjaeger]

Suggestions are O.K. for me! You were well-advised to call suggestions suggestions now. – So hopefully I can take you a bit more serious now.

I think we can agree that tangible proof for the destruction of four German airplanes in this battle can not be provided until now.

At least the two major problems are preventing to turn the suggestions - made by RG - into more than only suggestions:
1) In general a reasonable matching of victories and losses requires fitting locations, times and circumstances (if available). It is no correct science but should be done in a scientific manner.

2) Researchers are often very ignorant to the “world outside”! They look at the claims of “their heroe” or research subject and forget about the fact that other pilots did score on this day too. Therefore it is necessary to compare the claims of all other pilots with the enemy losses as well!

RG´s suggestions are:
1) Ltn Wattenberg (KIA, FAA 207) location: Pont Avache time: ?
2) Vfw Schymik (KIA, Jasta 24s) location: N Pormereuil time: ? (not reported in KTB J24)
3) Ltn Hinky ((WIA, shot in the leg, Jasta 44s) location: ? time: ?

1) Without time of the loss or a very well-fitting description of the incident is no real matching possible. Ltn Wattenberg could have been killed by any other British aviator (or AAA?) as well.

2) RG has the suspicion the loss of Schymik– and Altemeier´s victory- happened one day earlier. So-called “late entries” (delayed entries) of victories and losses happened on both sides and have to be taken in account.
My copies of the Jasta 24s material display no (!) time for Schymik´s loss. It is not possible to say if this loss happened in the same mission like Altemeiers victory (R.E.8 reported for 28.10., KTB J24: 9.25 hours vs ATL: 9.20 hours, near Happegarbes). As well additional information is necessary to prove the assumption that this incidents happened one day earlier.

3) Without time of the loss or a very well-fitting description of the incident is no real matching possible. Ltn Hinky could have been wounded by any other British aviator (or AAA?) as well. (Hinky, a newcomer, came 16 days ago from Jastasch II.)

Based on the afore mentioned I would conclude it is too early to make hastily statements like
a) the victims of Barkers last combat are known or proven OR
b) Barker was not successful at all in his last combat.

By the way: I am pretty convinced Barker was in a great fight – however, I really wonder about the missing reports of “thousands of observers”! It seems to me the problem with the “case Barker” is not only a problem of lacking German documents. At least I would like to see more reports of the thousands of eye witnesses [sic] of the fight.

[rammjaeger]

N Pormereuil - in fact (north of) Pommereuil - and Happegarbes - in fact Happegardes - are located east of Le Cateau and may pass for a wider understanding of the Forêt Dom de Mormal.

However, I can not see any Pont Avache - in fact French: Pont à Vache (!) - anywhere near the woods. I found only one location with this name near Doullens (!), many, many dozen miles away in a different sector!

Note, if nobody can prove the existance of a location with name "Pont à Vache" close to the Forêt Dom de Mormal for 1918 then candidate Ltn Wattenberg is most-likely "out".

[RussGannon]

Southside

Yeah Rammjaeger really looks like a fading star fighting to retain credibility (with I suspect with some e-mail prompting from his better informed peers )

Pete

On 14 Jan 16 Oswald Boelcke scored his 9th vic over an 8 Sqn BE2 which crashed with a wounded crew in Brit trenches at Achiet le Grand. Boelcke however, who had just been awarded the OP le M, made a forced landing at Flers - the official German line was that he had run out of fuel - but Boelcke confided in a letter to his brother that his fuel tank had been shot through and that bullets had gone through his overcoat! See 'Knight of Germany' by J Werner (1933) - A precident suggestive to me, that one has to treat the German 'official' line in regards the demise of thier premier airmen with caution.

In line with that - the demise of 'Der Adler von Lille'. Now contrary to Rammjaeger's reckless claim; the British did not fabricate a claim (nor did they fabricate evidence re the Ball disorientation - that came from a reputable German source). Immelmann died in a well documented fight with two Fe
E's of 25 Sqn - in which his Fok EIV 246/16 dived viertical to the ground after being fired on by Cpl J Waller and was confirmed to have crashed by Brit AA! Norman Frank's gives this good treatment in 'Who Downed the Aces..' and I like his summation: '..if he had indeed smashed or damaged his propellor, why did he not switch off the engine immediately, which would have stopped the vibration? He could then have glided down to a safe landing.'

Rammjaeger

Instead of clutching at the straws of Germanophile denial re the Barker fight (which I will get back to you one on some points of detail), how about taking up the challenge of informing us all as to whom Schliech downed on 8 May 18 - prove to our audience that you are not all bark and no bite.

And also how do YOU resolve the Schmyk loss, if it occured on 28 Oct and not 27 Oct, as I would propose. See if you can do it on your own and without help

Cheers to all

Russ

[rammjaeger]

RG,
I see you shot yourself in the knee again. That makes the matter easy for me!

Your assumption concerning peers is wrong - different to you I have the relevant copies standing in the bookshelf behind my seat.

I made no reckless claim - the contemporary British and German authorities did believe "The enemy is always lying." That is a well-established fact.
I knew you would not resist the temptation to twist the words in my mouth.

By the way your claim that Britons did never fabricate anything is another suicide if we look at the dubios VC-winners Jerrard and Bishop and the reports of the British propaganda concerning aviation in WWI.

Norman Franks is in error if he believes that simply switching off the propeller would have automatically saved pilot and airplane. Being a well-known aviation historian he should have known better. He made some more unnecessary mistakes in the Immelmann-chapter of his book "Under the Guns of the German Aces".

I see you are permanently misreading and misinterpreting my lines in every single post. Obviously you are not able or willing to accept any facts if they are not coming from your side of the lines.

So, do your home tasks now and show us proof for all your fullmouthed claims. I will rest meanwhile.

If you have too big problems with your argumentation then I will help you and make suggestions because I am really helpful to everybody - even to people who do not deserve my help.

[Pete Hill]

Hi everyone,

thank you for your replies, much appreciated. I did not intend for this thread to become confrontational but it seems I was very niave in thinking that these questions were settled and had simple answers.
Perhaps some of these will never be settled as Rammjaeger has correctly pointed out how, without new material or any more witness statements, how can these events ever become free of any controversy?
The reason I started this thread was that in recent years I have read material that has either challenged or overturned many of the previously-held perceptions and facts on various historical events. It seems that the theory of 'for every action, there is an opposite reaction...' applies to history and how we view it.
For example, I grew up believing the common interpretation of the Medieval Dark Ages as taught to me at school- it was a violent, chaotic, stagnant and backward age. Now it seems there is a growing school of thought that is turning this notion on its head- the so-called Dark Ages were anything but. In fact, they were actually a technological and socially vibrant age with many progressive developments. The previously believed perceptions of that era were handed down to us by vain and selfish historians of the Rennaissance period who sought to denigrate their forebears.
Another example, the Battle of Midway June 4-7 1942 has always been one of my 'favourite' Battles and I have read books on this since I was young. Now, having read several recent ones, many of the things that I thought were Gospel about that battle are now changed by recent writers:-

The Japanese carriers were just about to launch their air-strike on the US Task-forces when the US dive-bombers struck. Wrong, the Japanese were still at least an hour away from being ready to launch anyway.

Scout plane number 4 of the Japanese cruiser Tone was half-an-hour late taking off and consequently did not sight the US fleet until it was too late. Wrong, if the plane had taken off on time, it would have missed the US fleet entirely.

The survivors of the US carrier Torpedo squadrons were heading home after their disastrous attacks before the US dive-bombers struck. Wrong, the attacks over-lapped, Torpedo 3 from the USS Yorktown did not attack until after the dive-bombers had begun their assault.

The Japanese fighters on CAP over their fleet did not spot the approaching US dive-bombers until it was too late. Wrong, the Japanese pilots did see them coming well in advance, but they kept at low-level as they regarded enemy Torpedo planes as a more dangerous threat.

Captain Richard Fleming, flying a Marine Vindicator dive-bomber of a unit based on Midway island, crash-dived into the deck of the Japanese cruiser Mikuma after his aircraft was set alight by AA fire. Wrong, his plane was seen to go into the water.

See my point? You carry these popular perceptions of an event and then have them turned upside down as new material comes to light. Hence the reason I started this thread, as I wanted to know what really happened in these famous events of WW1 in the air. I will take the advice of experienced forum members and trawl previous threads.
Thanks again everyone who replied. Pete

[RussGannon]

Rammjaeger

I see you are beating a retreat again. Not willing and capable of dealing with the little challenges I set for you.

Anyway back to the Barker fight.

The FAA 207 suggestion - on the previous day another FAA 207 machine was lost at Solemes - 10 km west of Mormal and probable victims of 60 Sqn. This puts FAA 207 squarley in the right area! My suspicion is that Pont Avanch is a mis-transcription of Pont Vaches on the western edge of Mormal forest!

As to the time of the Schymik loss, I got this from Jasta War Chronicle. Regardless Rick's Js 24 history places the loss in the same action as Altemeier's 0920 victory - that Schymik was shot down by one of five 'Dolphins' protecting the 'RE8'.

As to Hinky WIA. There are only three other Fokker claims ( 1 crashed & 2 OOC) in the area of Js 44 operations.

And I will repeat this time & time again - that one CANNOT dismiss the possibilty of German crash landings & bale outs which did not result in serious injury and as a consequence will not be found in the surviving German record.

Finally pull the other one Rammjaeger its got bells on it:
;the English of those posts is a little too good for you and it also lacks your usual rancour & arrogance. Mate I've been here before - back in the 90's I was involved in a long running similar debate in OTF's Mentioned in Despatches column with one Patrick Kennedy - an Irish Anglophobe who was want to masquerate as a Germanophile in order to prosecute his poisonous mud slinging. Anyway at first I thought he was a rouge element, but after a while I could see he was being aided and abetted by some highy placed Germanophiles; a point he conceded in his final sulking offering, where he recognised the support of FIVE of these silent partners. Those who feared getting their reputations tarnished in an open and fair debate. Better to let witless underlings do their dirty work.

You must explain to me what a fullmouthed claim is?

A little food for thought: a Germanophile by definition, can never aspire to be anything more than being half an expert in regards the WW1 air war.

Cheers RG

[RussGannon]

Pete

Sorry about that mate, but as you can see there is a little history here. Love your posts, keep 'em up.

Cheers Russ

[rammjaeger]

Niece try, Russ!

The correct term is "Der Rückmarsch".
However, I welcome every effort of foreigners to learn some German. It is the very first step to overcome age-old "Feindbilder" (plural of Feindbild, I hope you are able to find out the meaning of the word).

It is very sad to see your complete incapability to give up your "The Lonely Knight of the Lost Empire Fights a World Full of Germanophile Ennemies" attitude. You are not doing yourself any favour with this behaviour. As well your whole acceptance as a serious researcher is endangered or even destroyed by this behaviour.

Russ Gannon, wake up! The world is not black and white!

Now, you are even trying to develope conspiracy theories to confirm your own imaginations. I do not know Patrick Kennedy and I remember I was alienated by your and his fights via letter.

Do you know your problem? You are obsessed by your hate on people with other opinions. However, you are also not publishing your own views in print. (and I would only advice you do it if you can drop away your "Feindbild".)
You know: Publish or perish! Does that sound familiar to you?

I finished three articles in the last weeks. And what did you do?
You wasted your time with senseless tries to molest me.

There are not many people existing who could help you in your search for proof for Barkers victims. One of them is specialized on pilots of Saxon units (like Jasta 24 and 44). You will never find final proof or disproof (if possible at all) without help of Germans. You stupidly missed a chance.

Farewell!

[Southside Bucky]

Rammjaeger.

Apart from your continuously blatant rudeness, (unintentionally amusing as it sometimes is) You also, often seem to write totally at cross purposes to the point that Russ is trying to make...

As you say, the world (WWI aviation research in particular), is indeed not black and white. All Russ is doing, is illustrating exactly that point by supplying POSSIBLE names and dates for what many people (you especially) might consider to be unlikely or contentiously debated events.

At no point has he stated any of his excellently researched statistics as cast iron facts, and he's made that clear on a number of occasions. Yet you seem to follow him around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of heckling him.

If you disagree with him, then why not just counter his research with your own findings or views. You are, after all, a well respected researcher yourself.

IMHO, It would serve your purpose much better than your continuous efforts to belittle him every time he posts.

Regards.

Bucky

[RussGannon]

Southside

It looks to me like brave Sir Robbin has buggered off!

Cheers and many thanks Russ

"When danger reared its ugly head......"