Billy Bishop Again

Barker · 21 November 2002, 03:58 AM

kidding.

a dry back sentence to Bishop examinings.

don't mind me.

Michael · 21 November 2002, 05:02 AM

Let's get serious.

All Canadian pilots were liars and cheats.

Almost all British pilots were liars, but no one suspects their motives.

The Australians were probably liars and cheats as well, but no one dares say so.

Only the German pilots are worthy of any hero worship.

Or so you would believe if you read some of the threads.

I'm not convinced by anything I've read so far. As a medal collector of over 25 years' standing, I cannot credit a VC being given to Bishop from political pressure or through "petticoat influence".

The most likely answer is that there was supporting evidence through intelligence reports (agents behind the lines, prisoners, etc.). They may have been destroyed long ago, or they may yet surface in some nook.

Barker · 21 November 2002, 06:09 AM

Continuing the turn for the grave, one notes:

Anybody that climbed in those cockpits is probably made of pretty sturdy stuff, on *any* side.

On the theory of smoke hinting at fire, am of opinion most scores were either over or under, but in event, based on this reality: proficiency.
I should think combat would quickly and efficiently be the best discriminator for this kind of conjecture.

Some few aircraft in a count hardly disputes these achievments.

Now: Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?

-Barker

Baron_von_Tecumseh · 21 November 2002, 12:09 PM

I read BB book when I was about 12,seemed like fiction then,same opinion now

Grant I assume

Sgt Popkin

Albatroid · 21 November 2002, 01:56 PM

Oh for Pete's Sake... Plenty of persons with nothing to gain reported this or that air combat in such and such a place that resulted in the destruction of this or that aircraft. There is plenty of gun camera footage from WW2 to prove that an awful lot of pilots mixed it up wilfully and got the job done. If WW1 pilots had enjoyed the benefits of gun cameras we'd see the same thing from that war. >

If you wanna play devil's advocate and knock a given percentage off every pilot's claims, that's fine with me. The authors and experts (Toliver, Constable, Held, Spick, Tilmann, Franks, Shores, Boyne, and hundreds more) have been over and over this issue. Virtually every reputable book on the controversy suggests a standard of deviation for kills confirmed that are subject to some doubt of less than 10%. :

I would submit that if for a given pilot you reckon the unconfirmed and reduced claims with the confirmed kills that are doubtful nowadays based on historical data collected by the super sleuths, most of the time you'll find that they pretty much counterbalance one another. So generally speaking a pilot credited with shooting down 30 opponents probably shot down anywhere from 26 to 34. Who bloody well cares? Why be a tee totaller? ???

It seems to me that many of the people who come along 60 or 80 years later and give Ace's recognized scores the "Flat Earth Society" revisionist treatment are simply motivated by jealousy. Just because no one's dedicating highways and marble markers to me doesn't mean I embark on a campaign to smear the memory of others. I'm a common man- and most of these famous fliers started out that way too- but they were there, they lived it; I wasn't and I didn't.

These pilots were brave people and I refuse to believe that they were all a bunch of liars concerning their exploits. They earned their place in the history books- as for me, I just buy the history books and READ them.

WFS · 21 November 2002, 05:58 PM

I like what Chaz Bowyer had to say about scores:

It should be quite apparent to an objective reader that the quality of any fighter pilot's greatness, prowess, and/or leadership instinct is impossible to judge simply by the criterion of a 'score'.
Chaz Bowyer, "Albert Ball, VC"

Of course that assumes that the reader or historian is, or is even trying to be, objective. I'm afraid that real objectivity is even more rare than totally proveable score counts.