Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[Wayne Ralph]

Dear SFABERT, and Others,

You have touched on what is arguably the weakest part of Billy Bishop's military record - his abbreviated operational tour in 1918.

I have always felt that his credibility at that period raises more doubts than anything he may or may not have accomplished on June 2nd, 1917.

Air war historians should recall that the RFC and RAF policy was that SQUADRON COMMANDERS SHALL NOT FLY ON OPERATIONAL MISSIONS. OPS ARE TO BE LED BY THE FLIGHT COMMANDERS OF THE SQUADRON. THE SQUADRON COMMANDER HAS IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RELATIONS RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THOSE SKILLS ARE TOO VALUABLE TO RISK LOSING ON PATROL.

Now, this policy was by no means universally enforced and there are many examples of squadron commanders flying on operations. However, there are abundant cases where squadron commanders did no flying. The official policy of Brigade and Wing Headquarters on the Western Front was that good commanding officers were too scarce to be risked.

Bishop's intense motivation to raise his victory score, to the exclusion of all other responsibilities, would not have comforted Brigade and Wing HQ in May-June 1918.

The birth of the CAF in England may have given the RAF a convenient pretext to post Bishop back to Home Establishment before it became necessary to remove him from command. It is unlikely that any of this was documented.

A couple of telephone calls from the OMFC commander to the RAF commander was all it would have taken to have Bishop moved aside and replaced by Mannock. The RAF breathes a sigh of relief, and the nascent CAF gets a figurehead, quickly promoted by the OMFC commander-in-chief to lieutenant colonel.

The most significant doubt I hold about Bishop is how he was able to have such a large total of victories in 1918 in so brief a period, without so much as a scratch, never mind a schrapnel or gunshot wound?? That intensity of air combat over many days will put any ace, no matter how accomplished, at risk. Combat fatigue leads to mistakes, and nobody flies that intensely without fatigue.

Bishop's ratio of destroyed victories to driven down out of control in 1918 is questionable. It far exceeds what any other of the top aces approached at that stage of the war, or any earlier stage, for that matter. All accomplished without personal injury or significant damage to his SE5a.

Amazing, yes. Perhaps a bit too amazing....

[Billy_Bishop]

Amazing? *Yes, but not unheard of.

Frank Luke got 18 victories in about 20 days. *Indra Lal Roy, the only Indian ace to date, got 10 victories in 13 days. * George McElroy had a period where he got 13 victories in 16 days. * Ray Collishaw had 10 within an 11 day period. *

And look at what several German pilots did in the month of April 1917.

As for Squadron leaders who were not supposed to fly, Mannock took over 85 after Bishop, and he still flew. In fact, I think it's safe to say that had Mannock NOT flown, he would have survived the war.

Just something more to think about.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[CaptainLewis]

A few quick points, if I may?

Albert Ball has them all beat: 14 victories, possibly 3 more, in 13 days. It was the last two weeks of his short life, before he flew into that cloud and immortality.
(I'm surprised that another Albert didn't know this!)

Please keep in mind that Mannock could very well have been going through a nervous breakdown at the time of his death; please don't make it sound as if it were easy for him or for anyone to command a flight as well as run a squadron at the same time. It just gives the Bishoprics ammo, as in Bishop not having undergone such stress, ergo, something wasn't on the level about his time at 85...

And why, dear God, why do the Bishopites ALWAYS weaken their case by citing such writers as Reynolds and Whitehouse as historians? Does anyone take either one of them seriously nowadays? (I won't mention Drew, for I'm not familiar with his work). This is not to say that they didn't contribute something in their time -- but more information has become available since then, as well as writing methodologies having changed. Look, I LOVE reading Whitehouse -- but I wouldn't mention him and Wayne Ralph or Alex Revell in the same breath! (Although I'm afraid I just did!)
Even Chadderton gets into this silliness, when he mentions Joseph Phelan as an "American historian" who believes Bishop's version. Now, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! Phelan was, is , a MAGNIFICENT illustrator -- I look at his watercolor technique and it just takes my breath away...
But Phelan also wrote that Ball flew into that cloud, but "never came out"...

'Tis the stuff that comic books are made of...

VBR,
Capt. Lewis

[Barrett]

Wayne's comments on lack of battle damage during such an intense period of combat are well considered. I can't say about the others cited here, but apparently Luke used up 4 SPADs BEFORE his final mission. In fact, he used a brand-new bird because his previous one was being surveyed.

[Wayne Ralph]

According to Shores, et al, in Above The Trenches, 85 Sqn flew to France on May 22nd, 1918. Bishop's last successful flight with the unit is on June 19th.

Between May 27th and that latter date he destroys 24 enemy machines, and drives one down out of control. Eleven of the 25 official victories are accounted for in merely three days, May 30th, June 17th, June 19th. I don't believe that any of the 25 are shared with wingmen, and very few are witnessed.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I think that every mission is completed without a forced landing, without any engine failure, without structural damage, and without wounds.

It is the combination of the above facts that causes me to wonder about the record, not merely that a talented ace can rack up a large score in a short period.

I would be curious to know when Bishop officially joined the CAF in England? Was it in June, or not until August?

[Ron_F]

because someone writes a book or even an article, does not make them a 'renowned historian'. that can hurt both ways of the fence for our discussion here...

Wayne, it suprises me that you put that much doubt into your own countryman and national hero, BB.

valid points to be sure....

but let me say this: even if those claims of BB's that he says were destroyed, and we all know many times over that many pilots in the heat of battle claim a plane to be destroyed that were actually fired upon, seen to drop smoking or out of control and then fly back, they would still be considered OOC!

just my view.....

dont worry, im still trying to gaurd your tail Al...

[MilesC]

I'm not sure that the number of "victories" in such a short period of time is a valid argument for whether he achieved these victories. After all, many of the major British and Commonwealth aces racked up their victories in the last six months of the war, many of them in a very short period. We should remember that the spring and early summer was an incredibly hectic period in the air with the Germans attempting to stop the British counterattack to their spring offensive, and the British flying as much as possible to counter the Germans in the air and on the ground. So, there was a heck of a lot of air activity by fatigued aviators who are likely going to make a lot of errors, as well as relative newcomers thrown into the fray because there was no one else. This would present a lot of relatively easy pickings for one inclined to knock off the unwary.

So, I don't buy the arguement that his number of victories are excessive for this particular period. They are high, but so are the scores for other pilots in the spring of 1918.

Miles

[Billy_Bishop]

As for not having damage, I'll remind some of you of a WWII Japanese ace, who at the time, only had the use of ONE EYE, was flying a Zero (A6M5 I believe) and was being chased and shot at all over the sky by Hellcats.

When he landed his bird after a particularly harrowing mission, he found he had only one hole in the whole damn machine.

And he was flying against aircraft faster and basically better than his Zero.

Bishop had the Better machine, for the most part. His SE-5A had the edge on speed over most, if not all of his opponents. He was already a veteran of the war, and most adept at the hunting routine. I'm sure there were some who would have been surprised if he'd come back with much more than flak damage.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Wayne Ralph]

Dear Ron, Miles, and Al,

I won't belabour my scepticism much further.

Let me just conclude by saying that during my researches over six years I learned that the standard required to get a "destroyed" claim is higher than "driven down out of control"

"Destroyed" means what it says - the aircraft has to catch fire, break up in the air, or be seen on the ground in pieces, or some combination of these events.

However, a study of losses on the Western Front will show that approximately one out of five victories results in the destruction of the aircraft and/or the death of the pilot, or pilot and observer. Hence most victories are not "kills" despite the widespread use of this chilling phrase by authors.

This essential point was made to me by the late Ronald V. Dodds, who was a DHist historian at DND, and a contributing author to Canadian Airmen and the First World War - the first volume of the RCAF official history. He was also the biographer for Raymond Collishaw, and author of The Brave Young Wings.

It takes much greater skill to destroy an aircraft in combat than simply force it to break away and dive earthward. It also requires a higher standard of evidence if the phrase "destroyed" is to have any meaning in the text of a combat report.

To have combat reports citing 24 destroyed machines without witnesses either in the air or on the ground, and to find no casualty figures or losses of aircraft that can even come close to matching that number for the period in question has to make any reasonably proficient investigator pause for reflection.

Is it necessary to accept without question such claims just so the dramatic legend can be perpetuated? Surely there is some middle ground here between paragon and cheat?

[Ron_F]

i completely understand the 'criteria' for destroyed, and what that entails.

how the RCAF and RFC/RAF did their confirmation is very loose, as we've stated time and again.

1 of my many points is in the thread of Little and naval 8.

im not on a crusuade for BB. but i believe like Al does, they did it in good faith. 1 of my points made in the aformentioned thread. another pilot (respectable ace) SAW the destruction of a plane, yet i couldnt find a scout to corroborate to it. (yes, i know, im just an amatuer, means nothing). of course, this is almost a year before what we are talking about.

i agree, it does sound strange the RFC/RAF would give him the DEST claims for nothing that crosses over to a loss list. but see my point above.

again, i dont have any stake in this, if BB does show, somehow, beyond a doubt, that he lied. well, that is unfortunate.

both sides will never agree, so i leave it at that.