Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[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.

[Billy_Bishop]

Even according to Bishop's detractors, his marksmanship was undisputed. He put in quite a bit of time at target practice. And he was considered by many to be a crack shot.

It seems to me, that if we had no problem finding corroboration among the German records for his claims, we would not be commenting derisively on his shooting skills, among his "other virtues."

At least he made an attempt to identify his foes, unlike Fonck, who I am told, in many of his claims simply identified them as "enemy 2-seater" or "enemy single-seater."

But considering how everyone likes to pick on Bishop's mis-identification of the Albatros types at Esnes/Estourmel, perhaps he should have generalized instead.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[sfabert]

Al Lowe:

I agree that a few wrecked German aircraft with fewer than 50 bullet holes in them would go a long way toward establishing Bishop's combat marksmanship. The issue is not how straight he could shoot, but whether the airplanes at which he shot actually fell to the earth or not.

I have no idea in what condition his confirmed victims were actually found to be. But if any pilot other than Bishop had signed these CITARs, suggesting that 20 or thirty rounds into an opponent who then 'fell out of control' equates with a confirmed victory, they would not have been given a second glance. And the same people who would prefer not to give credit to anyone for the death of Albert Ball should reconsider Bishop's confirmed victories for the two Pfalz fighters who collided with one another before he fired even one shot at them. In that instance apparently being present to witness the event was the sole criterion for awarding the victories.

Much of the discussion here about the personal virtues or vices of Bishop sounds all too familiar to an American who endured the Clinton impeachment. In each case some folks have their minds made up to like (or dislike) the man regardless of his personal merits or demerits.

I have no interest in Bishop as an individual, and no desire to undermine a Canadian institution. I would never dream of suggesting that he lied in his combat reports. Instead I see his career as a commentary on the political aspects of British military aviation, rather than proof of his personal character.

Nobody compelled Bishop's superiors to credit these reports as victories. If the unconfirmed reports had remained simply reports, the man would obviously be just as competent, brave, and daring, but his reputation would also not be tarnished. It was not his personal fault that his combats resulted in so many questionable confirmations. He had no control over the confirmation process, once he filed the CITARs. But clearly some of his superiors treated his reports very differently than they treated objectively similar reports filed by other pilots. And some people today are blaming Bishop for the way those reports were treated, in a way that they would not treat any other pilot who filed identical reports that justifiably resulted in no confirmed victory.

When the rookie pilot Frank Luke filed his first combat reports that read at all like some of Bishop's, his squadron mates took offense and questioned his veracity. Apparently some of Bishop's associates did likewise, but his superiors clearly did not. In a rookie pilot I would ascribe such reports to youthful exuberance and undue optimism, not dishonesty. In Bishop's case the fact that his early reports resulted in confirmed victories undoubtedly reduced the pressure to report his results more conservatively. In Luke's case the hostility of his compatriots and the lack of confirmation made him take too many risks. The differences are probably due more to the way others reacted to these pilots, than to differences in their personal character. If Bishop's VC mission had resulted in derision and scorn rather than a medal, he might have lived just as spectacularly short a life as Frank Luke.

[Michael]

I am in publishing, but it's with Thomson's empire - the Legal and Regulatory branch.

Hands up all of you within 120 miles of Toronto. Let's make this one work. (Amy was up last year, but I doubt we'll be able to repeat that feat.)

[Intrepid]

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.

Hi Al,

Just for the record , Bishop's score was 2 Balloons,
52 and 2 shared destroyed , 16 OOC = 72.

[Billy_Bishop]

Hi Al,

Just for the record , Bishop's score was 2 Balloons,
52 and 2 shared destroyed , 16 OOC = 72.

Ok, and?....

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Tom_Cervo]

Mr. Revell,

Perhaps next time you might choose to read my entire message rather than attack me for something which I quoted.

Re-read my message regarding Caldwell. *That passage was a direct quote from a book by a colleague and friend. *At no point did I say anything about reading the primary material, nor do I quote directly from Caldwell.

It might also be beneficial to quote the source, rather than your memory.

A photstat of Caldwell's report is reprinted on p.246 of Over the Front, Vol.10, #3, Fall 1995, as part of Markham's article. Here's the text:

Reference our telephone conversation of to-day. Herewith information as requested.
1.Time left aerodrome 3.57 a.m.
* Time arrived at Hostile Aerodrome 4.25 a.m.
* Time arrived back 5.40 a.m.
2. Personal evidence only
3. Damage done - 17 Bullet holes. Trailing edge of lower plane shot away in two bays.
4. Distance 30 miles. Aerodrome S. of CAMBRAI

/s/ K.L. Caldwell
Captain,
O.C. 60 Squadron,
R.F.C.

In the Field,
June 30th, 1917.

[CaptainLewis]

Dear Forum,
Regarding the Caldwell's report (above), I've often wondered, is there anything significant in the fact that it came almost a month after Bishop's mission? Did it serve to confirm Bishop's feat, or was there doubt, even then, as to his veracity?
Well?

Dear Sfabert,
Thank you very much for the information concerning Ball & Bishop; I urge you to read a past thread, LOTHAR VS. BALL, or somesuch title, where Ball's demise was gone into in detail and from many different angles. In fact, that thread marked the 'return' of Alex Revell to the good ol' Forum...

Dear Mr. Ralph,
Did that letter writing granddaughter -- whose ancestor was in both 56 and 60 Sqns -- ever identify her grandfather? (Her letter was published in the Post, very critical of Bishop, saying that it was about time his reputation was deflated...)

VBR,
Captain Lewis

[Intrepid]

Ok, and?....

VBR,

Al Lowe

Hi Al,

I was just stating that fact and you don't shoot down 52 airplanes, 2 ballons and share 2 more with the 16 OOC if you are a bad shot.

[Tom_Cervo]

When the rookie pilot Frank Luke filed his first combat reports that read at all like some of Bishop's, his squadron mates took offense and questioned his veracity. Apparently some of Bishop's associates did likewise, but his superiors clearly did not. In a rookie pilot I would ascribe such *reports to youthful exuberance and undue optimism, not dishonesty. In Bishop's case the fact that his early reports resulted in confirmed victories undoubtedly reduced the pressure to report his results more conservatively. In Luke's case the hostility of his compatriots and the lack of confirmation made him take too many risks. The differences are probably due more to the way others reacted to these pilots, than to differences in their personal character. If Bishop's VC mission had resulted in derision and scorn rather than a medal, he might have lived just as spectacularly short a life as Frank Luke.
[/QUOTE]

Luke's first claim was doubted because of his inexperience and his lone witness, and he also had a problem with being a bit of an outsider--a Westerner and a new boy. It did not take very long for the men of his squadron and group to accept his claims, and by the time of his loss he was the local hero. He's also been cited in the Grub Street books for making very accurate claims, which would argue for the superior SA that he demonstrated. Not many men lasted long attacking balloons; he just pushed his skill a bit too far.
Even his final mission seems a very near run thing--a grain or two of powder less in his fatal bullet would have left him alive.