Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[leo]

I will be happy to advise of my trip to the EX and would enjoy meeting with anyone interested in doing so.

[Michael]

500 Liquored-up Forumites Descend on Toronto!

MVR Relics Missing from Military Institute!

"Kid From Hell" Battles Toronto Cops!

For these and other breaking headlines, stay tuned

[SEDieter]

Michael,

Sounds like you've got a job writing headlines for the Toronto Sun!

Mind you, I know that the RCMI would not be happy if the Red Baron display disappeared. And I think I can say that on behalf of my fellow members of the Institute!

Seriously, I think that a forum get-together in August is a great idea. I'm looking forward to seeing how we develop it.

[sfabert]

Wayne Ralph:

There may be no records of the precise motive for promoting Bishop out of his command in 1918, but my recollection of the surviving commentary from the pilots of 85 Squadron was that there were 'personality conflicts'. I would be interested to see references to any specific comments along this line, since I do not recall any authors/page numbers at this time.

The first thing I ever noticed about Bishop's record that gave me pause was the great preponderance of victories over single seaters. I don't have the list here in front of me as I write, but I recall especially being impressed that he could go out on lone wolf patrols in 1918 and tangle with single seaters almost exclusively, without being promptly shot dead by the packs of Germans who at that stage of the war rarely flew around in pairs or trios. If he was in fact regularly shooting down German fighter airplanes, without assistance from any wingman and without substantial damage to his own airplane, then he is far and away both the luckiest and the most skilled pilot of the war. No other pilot of any nationality was able to put together that combination of factors. Luke survived a very short time even with his excellent wingman, and Albert Ball did not live long once he began to encounter groups of German fighters flying together. Luke also started his career with some credibility issues, which may have been a major motive for his preference for attacks on highly visible targets.

Perhaps it is this combination of factors that led other pilots to question the reliability of some of his claims? Bishop was, by his own description, a true Superman compared to every other pilot on either side of the lines, according to his 1918 record - both invulnerable and undefeatable, it would appear. Too bad these feats were to a great extent also invisible to others.

[ProfFate]

Hi

I am not a WW1 specialist and don't know the answers, I do know Questions!
In WW2, Chris Shores examined thousands of sq. records trying to reconcile everyones claims/losses. His conclusion with WW2 was that pilots with 20 or fewer over claimed, pilots with 20 or more UNDERCLAIMED.
Point 2. Records are often honestly in conflict. During the Battle of Britain, for instance, if a british plane came to earth and a major component survived, it was officially damaged not shot down. A FUN example is one of the times Al Deere was shot down by the tail gunner of a recon Do 17. After losing the engine, he glided down to a crash landing with some additional damage, but was listed as damaged/repairable at depot!
By contrast, the germans in the same period would consider an aircraft that came home and landed at its home field but needed the replacement of a major component as destroyed. Oddly, the repaird aircraft would continue with the original serial, while getting new wings and engines and being considered NEW.
3)in periods of intense conbat on ALL SIDES, the paperwork would commonly get last dibs on the time. Reports to HQ of losses might be delayed for weeks and, therefore be listed with a date out of time with the actual loss.
4)I see a lot of quibbleing about a crash being described as being on the WRONG side of a forest. All the flyers in this group should be responding to this, from the air things look different and without GPS it can be difficult to describe exactly WHERE you are.
5)Shot down airplanes do not just instantly crash directly below. Falling ballistically, the wind can move them great distances. Particularly, wood and canvas airplanes Fall Slowly.
6)in all periods, people do shoot down friendlies.

Do you believe that ANY of these factors may affect the larger scoring pilots?

Rocky

[CaptainLewis]

Dear Sfabert and all,
I would just like to mention something concerning Albert Ball, but I promise to bring this post around to Bishop as well...

It wasn't German tactics that downed Ball (while it WAS coming out of a cloud inverted and low to the ground); in fact, Ball was going 'great guns' up until the very last time he was seen. Again, 14 victories in 13 days, and possibly three more; but I digress...

At the time of Ball's demise, RFC fighter tactics DID leave something to be desired: 56 Sqn would take off together, go to a pre-determined point in enemy territory together, AND THEN SEPARATE, each going his own way, depending on what they saw there or, in Ball's case, where they found the best 'hunting'. A recipe for disaster? Yes, indeed; this is exactly what happened on 7 May 1917, when 56 took off en masse, separated, and was shot down in detail...

It is hard for me, based on what I've read and studied, to reconcile Bishop's "lone wolf" tactics with the realities of air warfare in 1918...

But here, as promised, is the Bishop-Ball connection: didn't Ball suggest to Bishop the idea of 'raiding the aerodrome at dawn'? Is this from Bishop's autobiography (which, I believe, Al Lowe has since refuted)? And didn't someone here at the Forum, about one year ago -- possibly Alex Revell? -- say that such a meeting between Ball and Bishop was whole cloth? These are only questions, NOT accusations; I would just like to get the stories and versions straight...

Now, if you'll pardon, a bird has just lit on the windowsill and I am compelled to investigate...

VBR,
Captain Lewis

[Billy_Bishop]

According to Bishop, in his autobiography, as well as other sources, he and Ball did have a conversation about doing a dawn raid on a Geramn aerodrome. This reportedly took place before Bishop went on leave.

Bishop then came back from leave, and before he and Ball could coordinate their plans, Ball was KIA.

I have not refuted it, it's just that when one of two parties to a conversation is killed, it's difficult to say with any certainty that the conversation ever happened.

For the moment, I'm taking Bishop at his word.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

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?

Let me say again, that I don't think that Bishop ACTUALLY shot down 72 enemy machines, balloons or gooney birds.

I do think he made his claims in good faith, however mistaken he might have been. But I don't think he cheated. Neither do I think he was a paragon of virtue either. I think the last time anyone remotely close to being like walked this earth was around circa 1 A.D.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Ron_F]

the 'meeting' is in BB's book.

but, if i recall Ball's bio book, the dates dont match up and no mention of the meeting. i could be wrong on that....

[sfabert]

Capt. Lewis:

David Baker's short 1990 bio of Bishop relates at page 10 that the meeting between Ball and Bishop occurred on May 5 during a visit by Ball to 60 Squadron. This portion of Baker's book appears to rely solely on Bishop's autobiographical account for its description of the meeting. I am aware of no other reference for the time and place of this meeting. I find no reference to a social visit by Ball on May 5 in Alex Revell's book on 56 Squadron, which recounts other events for that date, including a very intense aerial combat by Ball.

Baker's book is a useful source for the narrative text of Bishop's CITARs. A quick glance through them reveals a number of victories achieved with 50 bullets or less. So his marksmanship apparently was right up there with that of René Fonck, along with Bishop's other virtues.