Billy Bishop Again

Barker · 8 December 2002, 07:19 AM

In the absence of definite proof, 72 and yes.
However, Mannock was the better pilot.

And there is no Santa Claus.

-Barker, a fellow-countryman. 8)

Barrett · 8 December 2002, 07:26 AM

It's indisputable that Bishop was credited with 72 victories and 55 kills. Whether the figures are worth anything remains questionable...
As for The Raid, all we can say fershue is that at some point His Majesty's gummint declared that it occurred, whether it did or not, whether there was Other Evidence or not.
BB may or may not have been the biggest liar since Wyatt Earp, but The System was at least as much at fault as any individual. (Poor

Alan Jerrard!) It may be that BB simply was more adept at manipulating/exploiting that system than anyone else.

Billy_Bishop · 8 December 2002, 10:00 AM

I'm with Barret on the victory issue. As to the raid, I can't explain why, just call it my opinion, or whatever, but I do think that Bishop did attack an airfield. AND I think that HE saw 3 enemy planes go down.

I also think that by whatever means, I believe his claims for 2 June, 1917 were confirmed. At least to the satisfaction of His Majesty and the Imperial General Staff.

Again, this is just my opinion. And since there is no other proof, either way, we'll never really know for sure on that issue.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Richard_Schrader · 8 December 2002, 11:08 AM

All;
Well, I did my job. I got Al up and going again!

Richard

9 December 2002, 03:30 AM

Lots of pilots did aerodrome raids...but not very often did they do it alone. They didn't get VCs for it.

By this token, Bishop is to be awarded the VC because he did it alone? Yes i know, mostly because of prior deeds, however had he done this thing with a partner(fry?) he would not have been given a VC. I find that ironic. By doing it alone, it's worthy of a VC, but by doing it alone it is very difficult to prove.

Michael · 9 December 2002, 05:40 AM

My opinion is that there was backup for Bishop's raid, and it probably was in the form of intelligence reports, either agents or prisoners.

Maybe there wasn't such information for the other raids.

I'm willing to believe Bishop didn't do as much damage as he thought, and that accordingly the Germans were able to repair the planes, and so as we all know "they weren't casualties".

Billy_Bishop · 9 December 2002, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Lots of pilots did aerodrome raids...but not very often did they do it alone. *They didn't get VCs for it.

By this token, Bishop is to be awarded the VC because he did it alone? *Yes i know, mostly because of prior deeds, however had he done this thing with a partner(fry?) he would not have been given a VC. *I find that ironic. *By doing it alone, it's worthy of a VC, but by doing it alone it is very difficult to prove.

The criteria for what would get you a VC in the air changed from moment to moment. Some of the first VC's were awarded just for bringing down an enemy machine.
What would get you a VC in 1915, MIGHT get you a DSO in 1916.

Bishop was recommended for the VC because so far as is known, he was the FIRST to attempt a raid on an enemy aerodrome. As to his being alone, he flew alone most of the time.

He DID invite Fry, and supposedly one other. But they declined, most likely because they were up partying the night before.

Would he have received the VC if Fry had gone along with? I don't know. It's still possible he might have been recommended for it. At least it would have given him a solid eye-witness.

Then again, maybe Bishop had already picked up on the animosity that Fry harboured toward Bishop. Maybe he "knew" that Fry would turn him down.
But, what was his plan if Fry did not? Engine trouble? Shoot his own wingman down? Or maybe, go ahead with the raid as planned???

I don't know. I do know that his medal was approved, and that leads me to believe that those in charge found some evidence they believed that let them approve his VC.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 10 December 2002, 10:40 PM

It's getting quiet here again.

EdStevens · 11 December 2002, 02:23 AM

Opponents of the BB raid will probably say the Bishop asked Fry knowing that Fry would decline. As you point out, Al, Bishop couldn't absolutely know that would be the case, and had Fry accepted, his hand would have been forced. If Bishop's scheme from the get-go was to fake the raid, this would be a terrible risk to take.

More likely, IMO, Bishop asked Fry because Fry was his second-in-command in the Flight and he was used to using/abusing Fry in this manner. After all, some of Fry's resentment against Bishop came from the fact that Bishop was officially supposed to lead the flight, but he would usually shirk that responsibility to go off on his own. This left Fry nominally in charge, a responsibility with which he was not comfortable.

Fry probably was not only not physically up to going with Bishop on the raid, but may also have seen it as yet another attempt by Bishop to take advantage of him. He was likely right.

Billy_Bishop · 14 December 2002, 01:46 AM

I think, in this particular instance, Bishop wanted someone with him as he knew that if the field were occupied, he'd likely have his hands full. Not only would he have AAA to worry about, but also aircraft trying to take off.

As for Fry's reasons for not going, I'd rather not speculate. I wouldn't want to be seen as being "Anti-Fry."

But, come to think of it, if I am PRO-Bishop, then I must be anti-Fry!!

VBR,

Al Lowe