Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

Barrett · 17 April 2002, 08:37 AM

* *Next to WKTRB, the BB VC probably is the most-cussed and discussed topic on this forum. *I gotta admit that Bish's claim for the airdrome raid is extremely scanty (he couldn't even ID the place the next day) and that, combined with apparent absence of witnesses and his inflated victory score, tends to make him look like the biggest liar since Wyatt Earp. *But we need to remember that lack of German AND British documents continues to cloud final judgement. *It's a frigging OUTRAGE that the Brits junked so many of the VC documents during WW II (evidently in response to a paper shortage). *Any verifying evidence to his VC mission that did exist was irretrievably lost--a crime against history IMO.
* * Having said that, I heartily concur that possession of a medal is no proof that anything did occur. *Read Crook's excellent "Evolution of the VC' (if you can find a copy) and you'll see that the system was far from perfect. *Alan Jerrard's gong alone is ample proof of the fallibility of the process.
* *BTW: being objective, the Medal of Honor has been administered far less evenly than the VC. *(Shameless Hype Alert) *My upcoming book on aviation MoHs deals with at least 3 such events that simply never happened.

SEDieter · 17 April 2002, 11:27 AM

Barrett,

Greenhous actually refers to Crook's work in his Introduction. *On the topic of difficult cases and Bishop in particular, he writes

However, in another context, Crook refers to "the almost complete destruction of the W[ar] O[ffice] files relating to the award of the VC during the Great War,"[sup]22[/sup] which goes far toward explaining why no one has been able to find the paperwork surrounding Bishop's award and why he did not touch the Bishop case. (page 26)

Greenhous then implies that this lack of paperwork, should it ever be uncovered, might lead to various theories - such as an awarding of the VC with no witnesses, or that the British government was anxious to create a parallel hero to the Red Baron. (page 26)

Of course, I think that this paperwork "should it ever be uncovered" might indicate the opposite. *For all we know, it might indicate something completely different.

Baron_von_Tecumseh · 17 April 2002, 12:54 PM

Is there a bottom line figure of how many of "The Bishops"
claims are verofied(sp) for sure

pspiranha · 17 April 2002, 02:27 PM

>And he claimed THREE aircraft shot down, not four.<

To be specific, in his combat report, he "claimed" that the aircraft he engaged were Albatros D.I and D.II types.

This was later changed to Albatros D.IIIs

While looking through an old OTF I again happened across a letter written by Alex Revell in which he refers to a Letter written by Willie Fry concerning the Bishop Raid. Fry made Revell promise not to print it until after his death.

Revell goes on to say that Fry's daughter refused permission for it to be printed. The contents of said letter might be interesting.

Wonder what ever became of it?

V/R

Dave Johnson

Billy_Bishop · 17 April 2002, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Is there a bottom line figure of how many of "The Bishops"
claims are verofied(sp) for sure

THAT depends on your definition of "verification." He had witnesses for over 20 of his claims, yet, the Guys at Grub Street could only match corroborative losses with 2. Neither of which were witnessed!!

Dan McCaffrey actually matches many of Bishop's claims with German casualties in his book, "

Billy Bishop: Canadian Hero." But I honestly think that there may be problems with McCaffery's list.

From the RFC/RAF point of view, they confirmed 72 of his claims.

Some like to argue that Jack Scott, Bishop's CO in 60 Squadron, liked to confirm Bishop's claims out of hand. Yet, according to Dan McCaffery and his cohorts, which include Joe Warne, Bishop had at least 5 unconfirmed. Four of those were gained while he flew under the command of Jack Scott.

And, according to other anecdotal evidence, when Bishop returned to England in September to receive his medals from the King, he had 47 confirmed victories, and 23 UNconfirmed.

With regards to the "evidence" that Mr. Greenhous presents. I have to agree that I think the Kofl report was correct. Bishop did not raid a German Aerodrome on 7 June, 1917, nor did he shoot down 4 German aircraft on that day. In fact, I don't think Bishop even flew any combat missions on 7 June, 1917.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 17 April 2002, 02:34 PM

Quote:

>And he claimed THREE aircraft shot down, not four.<

To be specific, in his combat report, *he "claimed" that the aircraft he engaged were Albatros D.I and D.II types.

This was later changed to Albatros D.IIIs

While looking through an old OTF I again happened across a letter written by Alex Revell in which he refers to a Letter written by Willie Fry concerning the Bishop Raid. *Fry made Revell promise not to print it until after his death. *

Revell goes on to say that Fry's daughter refused permission for it to be printed. The contents of said letter might be interesting.

Wonder what ever became of it?

V/R

Dave Johnson

So tell me, when was the last time in REAL aerial combat YOU tried to identify the type of machine you were shooting at?

As to the letter from Fry, it finally was printed. *I believe it was in C&C International. *From what people tell me, it revealed nothing new. *Which was no big surprise.

VBR,

Al, Lowe

DavidErrol · 17 April 2002, 03:14 PM

The William M. Frys letter was published in Cross and Cockade International Vol. 32, No. 1, Spring 2001 as an article titled "The Bishop Affair".

DavidErrol

CaptainLewis · 17 April 2002, 05:39 PM

... and Albert, I'll be more than happy to scan & send you a copy of this article...
* *Now for something for us to occupy our time while we take Hugh's suggestion and wait for the book to come out: it's from Mick Davis' SOPWITH AIRCRAFT (Crowood Press, 1999), page 59, a 'sidebar' entitled "Exploits of Pups":
* "15 August [1917] - Lt W.A. Pritt (66 Sqn) flew to Marcke aerodrome in the dark and dropped one 20lb bomb from 100ft right in the middle of a group of machines on the aerodrome. He dropped a second which fell in a road, and a third which just missed the machines, then dropped a fourth on Herelbout siding which was full of troops. Just as he was doing this he saw an Albatros scout getting off the aerodrome so attacked it and saw it crash on the houses north-east of the aerodrome. On turning round he saw another machine getting off the aerodrome. This he also attacked and it made a half turn, side-slipped, then crashed on the aerodrome. He then silenced a machine gun that was firing at him and returned home."
* I've submitted the above without comment; I leave it to your imagination as to its implications...
* BTW, it's good to see you, Wayne, back at The Forum; it's been over a year, and I still enjoy reading your fine book...
* Again BTW, Barker did lie on one occaision that I know of; it's detailed in Ralph's book, in which Barker took credit for another pilot's victory...
VBR,
Captain "L & C" Lewis
PS ... but he only made this claim in a letter home to his folks.
PPS As you were...

17 April 2002, 09:10 PM

Quote:

There were many documents destroyed in allied bombings in WWII that could infact prove Bishop, or any other pilot, had many more kills. You cannot discount an event based on evidence that does not exist because it could go either way. Although Bishops raid is questionable, he was an excellent, honourablem, and heroic scout pilot (lone wolf style) who survived the war and did shoot down a number of aircraft.

Why discount his reputation based solely on surcumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial evidence goes both ways, sort of. Actually in this case, the issue of who owns the burden of proof seems kind of backwards, based on circumstances of course. A lot of the evidence supporting Bishop's claims seems to be circumstantial. To look at it another way, hypothetically speaking, if Bishop were to be accused of shooting down 70+ German airplanes during the war, and if he were accused of carrying out the raid on the aerodrome, if he would be forced to defend himself against such accusations, the likelyhood of acquittal from such charges would be very high based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
Count it or discount it, either side can draw strength from a lack of existing information.

pspiranha · 18 April 2002, 04:48 AM

>>So tell me, when was the last time in REAL aerial combat YOU tried to identify the type of machine you were shooting at?>>

Cute Al. But then I wasn't the one who spent half an hour over that field and couldn't identify the field or aircraft.

My point, was that it WAS changed! Why? Who changed it?

If someone has a copy of the letter printed in C&C I would appreciate a copy of it via E-mail.

V/R

Dave Johnson