Sorting Myth from Fact- The Aces. - Page 8

Epee · 21 August 2008, 12:07 PM

MvR certainly did drink although there are no accounts of him appearing to be drunken. Likewise he also smoked but only on occasion, not as a habit. I believe the tea-totaling stories about him started as a result of his forbidding drink during the operations supporting the Spring 1918 offensive and his inclination not to be "wined & dined" by the aircraft manufacturers.

redintheskies · 21 August 2008, 01:07 PM

yes...and in reading up on the latest, newest things, i've found out that his brother had MAJOR drinking issues, especially after the war. mostly because he blamed himself for his brother's death and not being there when the fatal shot was fired by whoever (that is your opinion as to who). things fell apart for his family especially and even after the russians came in during ww2, life was no walk in the park for the richthofen family.

anyways, back on topic...

RussGannon · 21 August 2008, 06:26 PM

Barret

I'm fully aware of the argument, but one would only have to glance down at ones instruments - or look over the side at Wolff testing his guns, to get a hole towards the rear. In order of probability, I think the most likely culprit would be the 20 Sqn FE, as

MvR himself believed, followed by

Ray Collishaw and his boys and last of all, a dim witted wingman. I know of plenty of blue on blues, both British and German, but I've never come across one with planes from the same formation or unit.

But great sounding geneaology. I wish I could trace so far back.

Cheers Russ

Albatros_Ace · 21 August 2008, 06:41 PM

wow this has really become a debate with the drinking lol

Michael_Dailey · 22 August 2008, 12:44 PM

I'm going on memory here so feel free to shoot me down, but I seem to recall that

MvR, in a letter to his mother, said that Wolff was 'hinter mir' in the action that resulted in his (MvR's) head wound. Ref: Richthofen, Kunigunde von, Meine Kriegstagebuch. I am not certain, I seem to recall either he stated 'Wolff fliegt hinter mir.' or 'Wolff fliegt unter mir.'

Another source, Cunnell, when interviewed by Gibbon, stated the aircraft came at him in a line type formation. Gibbon, The Red Knight of Germany.

Neither source is the greatest, and I am going on memory, but if my memory is still good and the sources are correct in this case, wouldn't that put Wolff behind MvR and not beside him?

Thanks,

MDD

Rbailey · 22 August 2008, 02:02 PM

Somehow, I can't see an experienced fighter pilot not knowing what was in front of him when he fired his guns while in an attack formation.

Michael_Dailey · 22 August 2008, 02:53 PM

'Cunnell' in the above post should read 'Woodbridge.'

Interviewing Cunnell postwar would be quite a journalistic feat, even for Floyd G.

MDD

redintheskies · 22 August 2008, 03:25 PM

experienced pilots also make mistakes and even the "greatest" (i use it loosely) fall. it's lonely at the top, right?

Kirk R. Lowry · 23 August 2008, 10:44 AM

Bonjour mes amis!

I believe it unlikely that

Manfred von Richthofen was wounded in error and forced to land by a fellow staffel mate on July 6, 1917. The primary reason for believing that it was the fire from an F.E.2 that was the cause, being, that is what Richthofen thought! Though the combat was instigated from a distance the Albatros D.V was closing on, apparently, the crew of Douglas Cunnell and

Albert Woodbridge.

A careful reading of the account is necessary. Some make mention of the comment by von Richthofen that the observer began to fire from a distance greater than "three hundred metres". The description of the incident, however, continues: "Now he turned on me completely and I hoped to get behind him in the next turn to burn his hide ... Suddenly I received a blow to my head! I was hit!".

As the description makes plain, initially a weapon was fired from far, but, the combat continued and the round that wounded von Richthofen was not fired from so great a distance. The point being made by the Baron is that the opponent appeared to be foolish, but was, in fact, capable enough! This fact the the combat involved more that shots fired from afar is referred to by Woodbridge who noted "God how he [Richthofen] could fly" and "We could hardly have been twenty yards apart when the Albatros pointed her nose down suddenly".

Richthofen was not wounded as though by chance, but, in the course of a combat of turns and twists.

Fire from a friend behind hitting Richthofen is anything but probable ... it is difficult to believe that another pilot would fire through a one aircraft to hit another ... The only evidence, if that be the correct word, to support such a claim is that the wound was to the rear of the skull, but, knowing that the combat between the Albatros D.V and F.E.2 was fought with distance closing and aircraft turning makes it possible to understand how the injury was sustained.

Really now, if we respect von Richthofen can we not trust von Richthofen?

Salut!
Kirk

redintheskies · 23 August 2008, 11:51 AM

very interesting information comrade. true, the "enemy" did not hit him and that he was able to hit them from behind. what then again, who was with the baron on that mission? it seems that he was alone, but that usually isn't the case with him, unless he broke away from the unit, which might be the case. as far as i've read, i have not been able to determine who was with him that day. correct me if i'm wrong?