Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

Hi Jasta, long time no see!!

In response to your question, probably not a whole lot. I don't think Mr. Greenhous intended to scrutinize Bishop's career on a victory by victory basis. But if Steven Dieter sees this, I'm sure he can tell us much better.

Bishop's 46th victory, as recorded in Winged Warfare tells of the disintegrating aircraft. This victory is also mentioned in The Kid Who Couldn't Miss.

Greenhous, on page 150, writes "...and on the 16th, flying alone, two more that "crashed" for his forty-sixth and forty-seventh victims." (internal quotation marks are part of the original text).

On page 166, as part of the detailed account of Bishop's victories, Greenhous lists:

Date: 16/8/17
Sortie Number: 183
Claim in Combat Report or Logbook: "Crashed - planes fell off"
Location: Harnes
Patrol or Alone: Alone
Official Disposition: Destroyed
Victory No.: 46
Witness: No

I do not see any other references to this particular action.

[Billy_Bishop]

Testing, one, two, three.

Hi Everyone,

As you know, I am new to the forum, but I have been reading the posts for sometime now. I am amazed at the amount of discussion concerning the merits of Billy Bishop, both pro and con. I have heard of the controversies over the years and I have longed wondered why his credibility seems to be in question.

What different set of rules or scutiny, if any, did Capt. Bishop serve under while he flew for the British Commonwealth? Where not all pilots who flew for the British subjected to the same codes and standards, including the awarding of claims for enemy aircraft?

Maybe someone could explain to me these differences so I can understand this apparent bashing of a man that I have long regarded as a hero.

Thanks

[Billy_Bishop]

The problem really starts with Bishop's actions of 2 June, 1917. *He made his now (in)famous raid in the early morning hours. *All by himself, so he had no witnesses.

AND the perfectionists would have you believe that a veteran of 3 months of air fighting couldn't get lost and not know where he was....in the DARK!!!

Then there's this silly idea that he shot up his own machine. *Followed by the equally silly idea that he chucked his gun over the side, or left it on the ground after he shot up his machine. *This last bit was generally accepted (that he chucked it over the side in flight)until late. *It was found that there was no report of a missing gun in 60 Squadron records for that week. *And while Bishop himself never spoke on the subject, two people did. *His son, and Willy Mays. *

In any event. *With Bishop's VC award papers missing, possibly since before WWII, *we'll never know for sure if there were any witnesses or not.

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that there were. *But many dismiss it as his friends covering for him.

Then there's the lack of corroboration between his claims and German losses. *Never mind that he appears to be no worse than many other British aces. *"He's the top ace, so he MUST be lying."

Poppycock!

Anyway, in my not so humble opinion: Yeah, I think he may have over claimed a bit. *But no more so than any other pilot.

And if he did, I believe it was an honest mistake. *I also think that someone DID see his attack on a German aerodrome and told the proper authorities what happened. *

Anyway, that's my opinion.

VBR,

Al Lowe