Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wingnut_0 on April 17, 2002, 05:15:53 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/04/16/canada.war.hero.ap/index.html
-
Anything's possible...no guncam footage back then.
As a matter of fact, I remember something in Pierre Closterman's book about a WW2 RAF pilot who was famous during and after the war lieing about his kills.
-
Fuggin Score potato :eek:
-
David Bashow, a fighter pilot who teaches history at Royal Military College, wrote about Bishop in his book "Knights of the Air" and said that after three years of research he believes Bishop's record is accurate.
Yeah, and Roy Brown shot down the Red Baron, too.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Voss
Yeah, and Roy Brown shot down the Red Baron, too.:rolleyes:
Sorry Voss, do have any evidence what so ever, that Bishop's score is inaccuate?
-
Who really knows who shot Manfred,but this revisionism on Billy Bishop is really pathetic...The key is his lone wolf raid on a German airfield at dawn where he shot down 3 planes...The author says there were no German records on this and Billy was encouraged/rewarded to report/make up kill reports so the Allies would have a bonifide ace that was up there with the German great ones...I would like to know more on this but I do know one thing....He was very brave to fly and survive that conflict which is more than enough evidence to support his combat record..
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sorry Voss, do have any evidence what so ever, that Bishop's score is inaccuate?
No, Thrawn, and that's precisely the point. Questioning events that occured so long ago? You might as well contact the "In Search of..." team.
-
Yes he is a brave man indeed, but I've heard the RAF actually claimed more kills than the Luftwaffe had planes, but of course this was before gun cameras were widely used. Once gun cameras came into use the extra weight of the camera appearantly threw off the flight charachteristis of the Spits and the Hurris and made it much harder for the RAF to shoot down the 109s.
-
Im a Canadian..
But from the first time I read Bishops book,"Winged Warfare" I believe it is. I was amazed that they awarded a VC to a guy on his own word...It is increadable and cheapens the VC. He couldnt even name the German Field he hit....lol
-
Originally posted by skernsk
Anything's possible...no guncam footage back then.
As a matter of fact, I remember something in Pierre Closterman's book about a WW2 RAF pilot who was famous during and after the war lieing about his kills.
so the RAF was lieing too ?
-
Two sides to every story.... (http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=bishop&option=&start_row=1¤t_row=1&start_row_offset1=&num_rows=1&search_results_start=1)
-
Revisionism makes a splash, and that's why you see so many folks doing this kind of thing. We like to see our heroes get shot down.
Now, Bashow should have given us a reference to where he got the info on Jasta 20 being there. And if this isn't the first time a German base was attacked and shot up without official documentation, some additional examples wouldn't hurt.
Bashow's argument "Those about to commit fraud . . ." begs the question.
The next paragraph has some contorted logic, but I think it goes together with the next paragraph to say that the German propaganda machine wouldn't admit to the attack during the war. Fair enough (assuming verifiable evidence shows that it didn't report similar attacks), but the sword cuts both ways. He's arguing against a position that claims the Empire propaganda machine needed to create a hero.
"apparently makes reference to a written german denial". Uh, you shouldn't have to guess on the date. If Greenhous doesn't provide the documentation to give the exact date, he's not worth a damn. If Bashow doesn't bother to look it up, ditto.
Concur with the ntoe that landing and shooting up one's own A/C defies logic. There's plenty of easier explanations out there, many of which do not involve shooting up a German airfield.
--
But beyond that, Bashow doesn't provide convincing evidence that Bishop was ever really there either.
In the end, you've got a bunch of negative evidence. We don't have much to go on.
It's ludicrous, based on what little I've seen here, to say that he didn't fly out there; it's equally silly to insist that he necessarily shot up that field.
And what is this "circumstantial evidence", anyway?
One thing we know for certain, is that this act, for which the only direct documentation available at the time, and now, is Bishop's word, got him the VC.
You can say he deserved the VC and I won't contest you. Whether he shot up that field is a question that the two historians are using faith to resolve, not history. I dunno what happened; but it certainly appears by Bashow's own admission that the VC was awarded without ample proof of the act of valour for which it was given. People wanted to believe.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Bashow's argument "Those about to commit fraud . . ." begs the question.
Bishop was about to commit fraud, because he was grounded. He was >< close to beating the current allied score, held by a Brit. The Brits didn' want a colonial to be the best Allied ace so they gave him a desk job. Bishop said F#$ you and took up his plane anyway, got some more victories and surpased the current record. Brits said okay...fine, you can fly again.
Another note to make. A WW1 Victory is not the same as a WW2 Kill.
-
Another note to make. A WW1 Victory is not the same as a WW2 Kill.
I take it Erich Hartmann's 352 victories (not kills) is a walk in the park then?
Jay
-
If, you've ever been near one of these WWI aircraft, you should realize how brave a man had to be just to fly one. I think any Canadian, or British pilot with more than five flights truly deserves the VC. :D
-
His superiers seem to have agreed with your sentiments Voss...
Nothing new about this Bishops record has been in doubt for decades.
-
I strongly concur with Voss, it took Cahones to man one of those silk and wood coffins.
If the guy lied, he's a liar. Remember the pilots who have honor and forget the liars.
Jay
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Another note to make. A WW1 Victory is not the same as a WW2 Kill.
I take it Erich Hartmann's 352 victories (not kills) is a walk in the park then?
Jay
Not what I was trying to say at all. A WW2 confirmed kill was harder to be awarded then a unconfirmed WW1 victory.
-
In order for a kill to be confirmed in WW1 either somebody besides the victorious pilot had to see the crash, or a piece from the enemy plane had to be retrieved.
-
understood
Jay
-
"A WW2 confirmed kill was harder to be awarded then a unconfirmed WW1 victory."
An yet, despite all the measures used on all sides, overclaiming in WW2 was rampant and equally on all sides.
Daff
-
Originally posted by fdiron
In order for a kill to be confirmed in WW1 either somebody besides the victorious pilot had to see the crash, or a piece from the enemy plane had to be retrieved.
I don't believe this was uiversally true. I seem to recall having read (from Richthofen's diary) that aircraft that fell behind enemy lines were not awarded.
This led to the infamous account of Richthofen forcing a surrendering aircraft to Richthofen's home field only to shoot it down. From Richthofen's viewpoint, the observer regained strength and went for his gun. Observers from the ground thought it was a cold act, because afterwards the observers' goggles were seen to have been shot up (and the feeling was he had lost his vision. Richthofen, however, was an incredible shot and may well have dispatched him with a shot directly to the head (killed the pilot, too).
I always thought that was an incredible story, as who could say when the hits to the observer had occured?
Still, he alledgedly and very coldly cut a piece off the wreckage, and surrendered it to his superior with the comment, "Confirmed." Who can say if the account occured like this, or not?
-
S!
Before you start to believe one of these revisionist historians, you might want to read this article by Bashow:
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/common/FullStory.html&cf=tgam/common/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=20020418&dateOffset=&hub=comment&title=Comment&cache_key=comment¤t_row=2&start_row=2&num_rows=1
And his book goes into more detail.
-
Originally posted by Daff
"A WW2 confirmed kill was harder to be awarded then a unconfirmed WW1 victory."
An yet, despite all the measures used on all sides, overclaiming in WW2 was rampant and equally on all sides.
Daff
Daff the Luftwaffe was far stricter on the rules for air combat kills to be awarded than any of the Allied air forces were. The total number of "confirmed" kills awarded to British pilots for all of WW2 was 283, 275 confirmed kills- however, there were only 122,000 planes commissioned by Germany. It has been suggested that the RAF also killed all 76,000 +/- Japanese planes commissioned by the Japanese during WW2, bringing the total of RAF kills up to 198,000, and the RAF has been given credit for destroying all 75,000 or so Italian planes, bringing the total of RAF enemy kills up to the exact number of Axis air strength- 273,000 planes. This descripency of 10,000 claimed kills by the RAF over and above the total combined air power of the Axis has been attributed to mistakes in identification resulting in attacks upon American planes by British Spitfires, mostly against transport planes bringing in presents for poor British children in the latter part of the war.
-
The total number of "confirmed" kills awarded to British pilots for all of WW2 was 283, 275 confirmed kills- however, there were only 122,000 planes commissioned by Germany.
In a few months this will have passed into 'waffle folklore as fact, and be quoted as showing how superior Luftwaffe claims procedures were ;)
-
Buzzbait, I was commenting on the article you cite. Neither side presents a very impressive historical argument.
This isn't surprising, considering the field.
Hell, anyone will buy anything that has to do with modern war. It's on TV. Heck, you can even plagiarize and not lose your job.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
In a few months this will have passed into 'waffle folklore as fact, and be quoted as showing how superior Luftwaffe claims procedures were ;)
Its funny to see how people react when someone presents information or FACTS even, indicating that some aspect of Germany in wwii was better than some allied aspect, be it aircraft performance, pilot quality, claims procedures, battle victories or whathaveyou.
Standard procedure when presented with an uncomfortable fact or theory:
1. Ignore ("Thats not true", "you cant prove it")
2. Evade ("here they go again the luftwobbles")
3. Shift focus ("you are a Nazi/revisionist","well... Germany started the war so shut up")
Pathetic
-
The Luftwaffe was a honorable part of WWII. They did have the better pilots overall. Not to take away anything but the Allies, but I do believe they were better.
Jay
-
Originally posted by Daff
"A WW2 confirmed kill was harder to be awarded then a unconfirmed WW1 victory."
An yet, despite all the measures used on all sides, overclaiming in WW2 was rampant and equally on all sides.
Daff
Nope. After Russians did open their archives researchers found that Russians did lose more planes against FAF than victories were given to Finnish pilots thought difference was very small.
-
A couple of years ago, several people posted the various kill/loss numbers for the various RAF, US and LW units in the ETO and it became painstakingly clear that they all killed eachother several times over, if you went by the claims.
I think the only real research have been with the BOB, which was that the LW overclaimed 3:1 and the RAF 2.5:1.
Recently on AGW, a specific air battle in the MTO was discussed, again with the LW claiming the same figher several times over (No LW was shot down)
I'm surprised to hear that the FAF claims added up; maybe the size of the conflict could have something to with it?.
I don't think that most of the WW2 pilots overclaimed on purpose. In many situations they were most likely convinced that that plane was damaged enough that it wouldnt stay in the air, but don't tell me that you have time, in the middle of a battle, to watch a plane flutter down to the ground and impact, all the way from 30.000 feet.
Daff
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Luftwaffe was a honorable part of WWII. They did have the better pilots overall. Not to take away anything but the Allies, but I do believe they were better.
Jay
More experienced? yes..they'd been "at it" longer..Better? Hard to make a judgement like that unless its an opinion. US pilots were rotated to the states after so many kills, LW pilots just flew until they died, were injured, or the war ended, so you can't base it on number of kills.
-
I never mentioned kills
Jay
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
More experienced? yes..they'd been "at it" longer..Better? Hard to make a judgement like that unless its an opinion. US pilots were rotated to the states after so many kills, LW pilots just flew until they died, were injured, or the war ended, so you can't base it on number of kills.
So ok, we cant base it on number of kills, and we cant use some sort of monthly average either (at least imo) we also have to take into consideration what kind of aircraft they were flying, and against what kind of opposition they were flying. Case in point, on a fighter sweep over Germany in 1944 a US fighter squardron stumbled across a German flying school with something like 30 pilots in bi planes ...alot of US aces were created that day. We also have to take into consideration the different rules of what would constitute a "kill". If I'm not misstaken, allied pilots were credited kills of aircraft on the ground as well as kills in the air. I e if an allied pilot strafed a 109 on the ground, that counted as an "aerial victory".
If you want to remove the number of kills from the "who is better equation" what are you left with? Effectively you've made it impossible to compare pilots.
In my opinion, if the German pilots were "at it" longer, and had more kills, they probably were more experienced too, and thus, they were better.
The US rotating pilots was a policy desicion. Germany had another policy. This resulted in some German pilots being much better than their allied counterparts. It really is as simple as that.
Interestingly enough, it was the complete opposite for the ground troops. Germany was the only country with an extensive R&R rotation scheme for its soldiers. I e any German soldier regardless of rank was entitled to a number of days of home leave each year.
-
Its funny to see how people react when someone presents information or FACTS even, indicating that some aspect of Germany in wwii was better than some allied aspect, be it aircraft performance, pilot quality, claims procedures, battle victories or whathaveyou.
Standard procedure when presented with an uncomfortable fact or theory:
1. Ignore ("Thats not true", "you cant prove it")
2. Evade ("here they go again the luftwobbles")
3. Shift focus ("you are a Nazi/revisionist","well... Germany started the war so shut up")
Pathetic
Hortlund, you are aware that Elfenwolf's figures were one of his trolls, aren't you?
That they bear no relationship to any form of reality whatever, andthat they therefore can't be called "FACTS"?
-
The allies had quantity.
Jay
-
Does it matter which side had the better pilots, or if either side inflated their kill totals? so what, Germany had the better pilots, they couldn't win the war for them, in either WWI or WWII.
there's only one score that matters, and thank heavens the Allieds came out on top, 2-0.
-
Originally posted by Voss
Still, he alledgedly and very coldly cut a piece off the wreckage, and surrendered it to his superior with the comment, "Confirmed." Who can say if the account occured like this, or not?
um....this was George Peppard in "The Blue Max," not Manfred in Real Life.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Daff the Luftwaffe was far stricter on the rules for air combat kills to be awarded than any of the Allied air forces were.
I would love to see your source for this.
Because I've always had a real probelm with the notion that 100 guys shot down 14,000 planes.
- Oldman
-
Read Richthofen's Diary and tell me that.
His Dicta was modified after the fact to down enemy aircraft only over friendly soil. In fact, he rarely flew over the lines from that day forth.
He died when he violated this rule.
-
The isn't a winner in war only dead bodies. My grandfather told me this a couple of years before he died in 1998. He had to throw phospherous grenades in caves, and said "I will carry the screaming and the rotting flesh streaming off of live humans to my grave." Nobody wins, sorry.
Jay
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Hortlund, you are aware that Elfenwolf's figures were one of his trolls, aren't you?
That they bear no relationship to any form of reality whatever, andthat they therefore can't be called "FACTS"?
Uh...Nashwan, you are aware of the rediculous claims (mostly the) USAAF made in 43-45? Let me give one example, from the 15th of November 1943 to the 15th of April 1944 the 8th airforce claimed:
2 223 destroyed German fighters,
696 probable's, and
1 818 damaged.
At the same time the escort wings in the 8th airforce (the above numbers were bomber claims) claimed
1 835 destroyed German fighters.
Rediculous numbers.
Or why not the raid on Augsburg...
900 escorts from the USAAF and RAF claimed 118 kills, and the
500 Flying fortresses (B17s and B24s) claimed 350 kills
On that day, total number of LW sorties on the entire western front, including bombers and transport sorties was 950.
More rediculous numbers.
Now, you tell me. Are these numbers trolls?
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
I would love to see your source for this.
Because I've always had a real probelm with the notion that 100 guys shot down 14,000 planes.
- Oldman
But perhaps that is more related to your "all Germans were nazis" opinion? I mean, wouldnt it really kill you to have to admit that some Germans actually were quite skilled at what they were doing?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But perhaps that is more related to your "all Germans were nazis" opinion? I mean, wouldnt it really kill you to have to admit that some Germans actually were quite skilled at what they were doing?
Make a guy a judge, look what happens. He gets all irritable, thinks he's getting no respect, starts spitting and biting. Geez.
Nope, Hortlund, it certainly wouldn't kill me to admit that some Germans were quite skilled at what they were doing. Fighting wars is one of the things the Germans have shown the world that they enjoy doing most. I have absolutely no doubt that the Luftwaffe had lots of skilled pilots, some of whom even survived the war. I just don't buy their claims, is all.
- Oldman
-
Uh...Nashwan, you are aware of the rediculous claims (mostly the) USAAF made in 43-45? Let me give one example, from the 15th of November 1943 to the 15th of April 1944 the 8th airforce claimed:
2 223 destroyed German fighters,
696 probable's, and
1 818 damaged.
Yes Hortlund, I am.
I just thought Elfenwolfs numbers were so far out there as to be funny. They work out at over 4000 claims per month, every month of the war. For comparison, the RAF actually claimed 2500 Luftwaffe aircraft during the entire Battle of Britain, which lasted about 4 months.
Now, if you want to talk about real life overclaiming, fine.
All sides did it, all sides varied throughout the war.
To counterbalance the figures you quoted above, how about the Luftwaffe, in a 4 month period (the BoB) claiming 3,500 RAF aircraft shot down. Another rediculous claim.
I made a joke (a lame one, I admit) at Elfenwolf's figures, which like most Elfenwolf posts are gross exagerations made as a joke.
If I offended you, I am sorry.
-
The Germans were no more accurate than anybody else. The Battle of Britain demostrated that quite well. The RAF claimed about 1.5 kills for every kill they actually got in the BoB, the Germans claimed about 3 kills for every kill they actually got in the BoB.
Whenever a side was in a position to physically verify its kill claims they were much, much more accurate. The Germans were in this situation longer than just about anybody else and thus are generally more accurate (the Finns are an anomaly). However, to claim that this was due to a more stringent German system or some such is disingeneous and demonstratably false.
-
Amen Karnak..!
-
Does anyone else sense a huge load of Irony in the postings in this thread?
:)
Dago