Arch Whitehouse

[Richard_Schrader]

Al;
I never throught about it, but I guess that Bishop and Whitehouse did have a lot in common.

Richard

[Billy_Bishop]

Well, they were both in the RFC and the RAF, so yeah, they did have something in common.

Just as Bishop and MvR have in common the fact that they were both their country's leading fighter ace.
8)

VBR,

Al

[NeilE]

Hi Everybody;

I've read a few of Whitehouse's books and see him as a similar character and in a similar literary tradition to some of the western 'heroes' who either knew the real story of, rode with, or had some connection with, western characters such as Jesse James, Earp, Billy the Kid and others.

As someone else said Arch never let truth get in the way of a good story. Thinking about it, its odd he never ended up in Hollywood.

All the Best

Neil

*I never throught about it, but I guess that Bishop and Whitehouse did have a lot in common.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Richard

Hehehe.... good one Richard!

...it became apparent that Winged Warfare was ghost written by someone who likely had not actually seen war. *

And as Bishop himself later admited, it was wartime propaganda, and he could not bring himself to read it.

and I think *Billy could not bring himself to fight much in it either - at least not nearly as much as he claimed he did! *;D

[Billy_Bishop]

and I think *Billy could not bring himself to fight much in it either - at least not nearly as much as he claimed he did! *;D

Fight in a book? Of course Billy didn't fight in a book. He did his fighting from the cockpit of a Nieuport or that of an SE-5/5a.

As for how much flying he did, his log book shows he took off and landed 184 times in 1917.

VBR,

Al

[EARTHLING]

I think that Whitehouse is much maligned and usually by people who haven't read his books.
In this case I would ally myself to the thoughts expressed by Al. Lowe
Yes he made all sorts of errors of fact but he did fly and fight in the air war which is more than any of us did.
I remember in his autobiography there were two things he said that made me sympathise with him:
1 He referred to the loneliness and the class distinction as he was only an observer and not an officer and gentleman.
2 I hope I am quoting correctly. "I wish I had been able to show as much moral courage in the hungry thirties as the physical courage I had during the war." He didn't go on to specify what it was but I felt it showed the honesty of the man.
The last point I would make is that he did no original research and relied on memory or articles, records of individuals he knew etc. etc.
I liked a lot of what he has written and his patriotism is not in doubt.
Try not to scoff.
VBR
Peter S

[retread]

I have read several of Whitehouse's books. He wrote an autobiography about time in the RFC, although I can't remember the title at the moment. Personally I think Whitehouse gets something of a raw deal and is too easily passed over as a embellisher. He did survive for a long time at the front, through the worst of times for the RFC. He must of been doing something right. He never claimed to have 22 victories officially, more like a rough guesstimate of how many HA he was involved with destroying. He stated that the RFC's method of tallying the scores of observers was poor. As I understand it that is being very kind.
As far as being shot down by the "Baron" I believe it was a case of mistaken idenity actually started in Floyd Gibbon's book "The Red Knight of Germany". In fact (according to Whitehouse) they were not shot down by an aircraft at all during the incident in question. They were brought down by anti-aircraft fire while engaged with with an not overly aggressive German pilot.
I will try to post the title of Whitehouse's autobiography. Maybe some "forumite's" will soften their opinion of him after reading it. I don't know about 22 aircraft shot down.I do know Whitehouse lived to tell the tale (or at least A tale) through times when so many in the RFC were little more then fodder for Spandau's.

[StephenLawson]

Greetings fellow forumites:

The subject is Arch Whitehouse. *In the old Cross & Cockade USA there were several pertinent articles that we should consider. First 'The Experiences of Arch Whitehouse, 22 sqdn RFC/RAF' in Vol.4 /#4 Winter issue 1963.

Then the title, 'Should History Be Suborned For Personal Aggrandizement?' by Robert E. Rogge in Vol.19/ #1/ Pp.43-55, spring issue 1978. *Also in 19/4/382-3, winter issue 1978. Mr. Rogge author of at least 3 article in the old C&C USA. *Under the Pseudoym of Robert Elliott he penned 'The Eagle's Height' in 1961. A fictional account of WWI aviation. But it was labeled fiction. His MA thesis was 'The Royal Flying Corps Training and Causualties in 1916-1917 and Related Factors.'

In the 19/#1 *journal Mr. Rogge spends the body of the work on specific incidents of Mr. Whitehouse's misreported facts. Map locations, personnel whereabouts,dates, compass directions and times.

One specific battle occurs in
Arch Whitehose's note book transcribe to 'The Fledgling (page 147)', on 4/13/17 with clouds at 4,000ft with enemy contact at 11:30...

in the above listed article from C&C 4 /#4 Page 316 the same battle *was decribed *with clouds at 6,000 ft and enemy contact at 12:30.

In 'The Years of the Skykings' the same combat was reported *with clouds back to 4,000 ft and the enemy contact at 12:30.

All told there are 11 points of conflict with in these three separate works about the same combat contact. *All said to be quoting directly from Arch Whitehouse's notebook.

His official score and status as Flight commander or promotion to Captain don't stand up against scrutiny either. 'Fighters in the Sky', 'Squadron Schilling', 'The skys the Limit', and even in the pages of 'The Fledgling' all conflict. BUT let us remember these were published accounts and who does the editing and typsetting in the text and dust jackets on books- the publisher.

It is up to us to dig out the facts. *Thank goodness and the Queen for the PRO.

[BobE]

You can include me in any list of Arch Whitehouse victories. Still think "Years of the Sky Kings" is the best all around over view of the WWI air war, errors and all. I don't know where all this "invented the dogfight" stuff is coming from. Saw Arch once on a video documentary where he gave HIS definition of a dogfight as being a large number of planes in a close area and involving a lot of close turning only possible with the type of plane then in existence. He added "once you were in one all you wanted to do was get the Hell out of it!" That statement was enough to endear the man to me.Not my idea of what you would expect from a self promoting bragart..

I have read both "Falcons of France" and "Years of the Sky Kings". Don't remember too much about "Falcons" except that I didn't find it interesting enough to read it again. Not so with "Years" which is falling apart from being read so many times.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Bob E

[EdStevens]

Arch's definition of the dogfight comes from his autobiography "The Fledgling" (1964) and it's probably the one thing he did that irritates me the most. I consider it a piece of puffed up self-importance. Like many here, I have respect for the man as someone who was actually there, and who was a compelling storyteller and did a lot to start my interest in the subject. I have most of his books and they are a great read, if--like virtually all accounts of the time--have to be taken with a hefty grain of salt in terms of accuracy. Historical research is, after all, an evolutionary process. Those in it at the beginning will make and propogate errors that later researchers will inevitably discover and correct.

He held to the view that the word "dogfight" was only to be used to describe a battle between about 30-50 aircraft battling it out in a small area; meaning that according to him there were only a handful of dogfights in the entire war. This came from the fact that he was involved in such a battle himself. The fact is that this view is nonsense--the word "dogfight" was used by any number of contemporary pilots to describe fights between any number of aircraft. It irritated me that he felt he could single-handedly define how a word was to be used regardless of how it actually WAS used at the time.

Here's part of the quote from the book to give the idea:

"The reader will perhaps note that I have so far avoided the term dogfight, which has been used so carelessly for more than four decades and is applied loosely to any air combat in which three or four aircraft are engaged. This is a point that should be clarified, and I shall attempt to describe what I believe was the first dogfight staged on any front. I might add that as far as I can trace, only two more real dogfights were fought before the Armistice brought an end to our aerial adventures."

My reaction was "huh?" The fact that the term dogfight was "used so carelessly" by other pilots during the war to describe fights between three or four aircraft seems to have escaped him!