Red Baron

[2ndCMR]

Hi All,

surely what the autopsy did reveal was that there was an entry and exit wound, and that the bullet hit a rib as well. Fatal or not fatal, in the position it was in it is hard to believe that he could have continued on with such a chase after Brown had departed the scene. You have to read the eyewitness accounts of that last mile of the chase to see a wounded man with a hit like that could not have kept going. With a hit like that he would have certainly known about it, as it certainly was no graze.

Private F.R.Weston who helped Popkin, wrote, on the day of the event that the previous burst "did some damage,"but the second burst "was fatal." This was when Popkin himself according to his statement also made at the time, "observed at once that my fire took effect."

For Brown's supposed hit to take effect so long after the event, and at the same time in which Popkin claimed the above seem fanciful. So at the end of the day, no matter what happened it was not Brown, and it would seem by his statements to Bean after the war, he knew only to well this was the truth.

2ndcmr, i fail to see how people can be wasting their time when reseaching pilots from Germany. How you you possibily get a balance view of events when you only look at your own achives. I always get both when doing my research. We are not still fighting the war, only researching certain aspects of it and sometimes it is a shame that people from other coutires don't use this site, as information from their relatives during the war would add another dimention.I haven't made a study of Richtofen or his demise, a much over-rated pilot and matter as far as I'm concerned. So how can you come to this conclusion without even studying the man! Getting flustered? Not me anyway; I'm having lots fun! Before jumping into the deep end of the rhetorical pool old chap, why not practice a little at the shallow end first... Your words not mine.

You're flogging a dead horse Darren. Read my post above and the chapter I mentioned and then tell us what you think. Oh, and I didn't say anyone was "wasting their time reseaching (sic) pilots from Germany" . I said it was better spent on our own pilots. You see what I mean about your not remembering quotes accurately?

[Signals]

Hi 2ndcmr,

well try and write exactly what we exchanged. Your comment was, `the Red Baron was nothing but an opportunistic trophy hunter and you did care who got him in the end.'

So as a response to this nonsense with the same balance view as yourself, the full content of my reply was, `well that was your opinion and fair enough if that how one feels, but to be fair and balanced lets look at Brown shall we, a Canadian that kept his opportunistic lie going till the end.'

It seems people still need to explain how the Red Baron flew for over a mile intensely chasing May after receiving his wound from Brown? Hundreds of witnesses never spoke of the third aircraft. Your article hedges it bets both ways, he still deserved his medals for saving May, but the Baron did not give up the chase because Brown took a quick shot at him, his guns were not working properly and he was under fire from men on the ground, and this is what saved May. So if Brown never claimed to have done the deed, he certainly took the rewards and was very non committal to Bean's approaches after the war, so if you had done it, you would be open to any questions wouldn't you. As I said before, looks to me as though it was preferred to be known that an allied airman had out done Germany's best, good for moral old boy!

[Signals]

Hi RDC,

what they did was probe the track of the bullet, from entry to exit, and someone with a wound that close to the heart could not have flown for over a mile.

DB

[Signals]

Although Captain Brown was credited with this victory, it is on record that when interviewed on more than one occassion in later years, this gallant officer, who died in Ontario in 1944, never did claim categorically that it was he who shot down and killed von Richthofen..." (italics in the original)

Is this a claim or not?

Captain A.R. Brown in. MY FIGHT WITH RICHTHOFEN.

(after telling how he saw May, returning, according to orders, to Bertangles, being chased by a Red Triplane, which gained on him despite-or partly because of-May's agile manoeuvring; nad how having himself risen to 3,000 feet, he realised that the critical moment had come, and dived).- Brown says, `I was in perfect position above an behind. It was a mere matter of straight shooting. Neither plane was aware of me. I had dived until the red snout of my Camel pointed fair at his tail. My thumbs pressed the triggers. Bullets ripped into his elevator and tail planes. The flaming tracers showed me where they hit. A little short! Gently i pulled on the stick. The nose of the Camel rose ever so slightly. Easy now easy! The stream of bullets tore along the body of the all red tripe. Its occupant turned and looked back. I had a flash of his eyes behind the goggles. Then he crumpled -sagged in the cockpit. My bullets poured out beyond him. My thunbs eased on the triggers. Ricththofen was dead. The triplane staggered, wobbled, stalled, flung over on it's nose and went down. The reserve trenches of the Austrlian infantry were not more than 200 feet below. It was a quick decent. May saw it, I saw it as i swung over, and Mellersh saw it.

Actual report by Lt. Mellersh, 209th Squadron. I was forced to return to our lines at about 50 ft. Whilst so returning a bright red triplane crashed quite close to me and as looked up i saw Captian Brown's machine.

Actual report by Lt. May, while he, (the red triplane), was on my tail, Captain Brown attacked and shot it down. I observed it crash to the ground.

Captain Brown's actual report, Dived on a pure red triplane which was firing on Lt. May. I got a long burst into him and he went down vertical and was observed to crash by Lt. May and Lt. Mellersh.

Also, take a look at the photo on the website showing the elevators of the Red Triplane. Brown's quote, My thumbs pressed the triggers. Bullets ripped into his elevator and tail planes. With this in mind count the bullets in the elevators, number of holes in the elevator=0.

http://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2008/02/06/who-...he-red-baron-2/

Not sure how my comments are not following what you mean, we were talking about the Red Baron, but you think time would be better spent on our pilots, why? Thats is exactly how i read it.

[Gunner Bailey]

Also, take a look at the photo on the website showing the elevators of the Red Triplane. Brown's quote, My thumbs pressed the triggers. Bullets ripped into his elevator and tail planes. With this in mind count the bullets in the elevators, number of holes in the elevator=0.

http://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2008/02/06/who-...he-red-baron-2/

Darren

Thanks for the link to the photo. This clearly shows no bullet damage to the elevators or tailplane. Not having any axe to grind (not being Australian or Canadian) I'm coming to the conclusion that the Red Baron was probably hit by a single shot probably from a SMLE. Had it been a Vickers or Lewis gun I would have expected more hits to be visible even if only one round hit the cockpit area. The tail area of a triplane was quite large and if a machine gun burst had hit the plane on the level with the cockpit I'd have expected a few rounds to hit between the cockpit and the tip of the tail.

John

[David B]

John,

there is no real reason to have a axe to grind, after all of us were on the same side fighting for the same cause and

whoever got him I say good on yer.

If I may assume one thing though, could that shot have been the last one of a burst that may have been elevating either up or

down query. Also and I am no ballistic expert is it possible that different rounds because of say slightly different impellant

loads in the cartridge have given a different trajectory to a bullet. I just dont know and I dont think we will ever know.

David

[2ndCMR]

In the book The Red Barons Last Flight it is stated on page 140 that Sgt Franklyn was in charge of a section of a 13 pdr

aa battery, with no mention of whether he had access to machinegun/rifle fire. As the Baron was shot with a 303 bullet

it would appear that Franklyns claim could be dismissed.

That book can then be dismissed out of hand as Franklyn's account in Novarra and Brown (op cit.) was published in 1964 and says he ran to one of his battery's Lewis guns and fired into R's plane from close range, every fourth round being a tracer.

Sounds like there is a lot of wishful thinking going on in this case...

[fitzee]

" As far as I am concerned, I knew in my own mind what happened, and the war being over, the job being done, there is nothing to be gained by arguing back and forth as to who did this and who did that. The main point is that from the stand-point of the troops in the war, we gained our objectives"

Major Arthur Roy Brown

November 1930

[2ndCMR]

For those interested in the evidence, here are the most pertinent pages from Nowarra and Brown. Save them if you want them as I'm not going to leave them up for long.

[2ndCMR]

[2ndCMR]

Hi 2ndcmr,

well try and write exactly what we exchanged. Your comment was, `the Red Baron was nothing but an opportunistic trophy hunter and you did care who got him in the end.'

So as a response to this nonsense with the same balance view as yourself, the full content of my reply was, `well that was your opinion and fair enough if that how one feels, but to be fair and balanced lets look at Brown shall we, a Canadian that kept his opportunistic lie going till the end.'

It seems people still need to explain how the Red Baron flew for over a mile intensely chasing May after receiving his wound from Brown? Hundreds of witnesses never spoke of the third aircraft. Your article hedges it bets both ways, he still deserved his medals for saving May, but the Baron did not give up the chase because Brown took a quick shot at him, his guns were not working properly and he was under fire from men on the ground, and this is what saved May. So if Brown never claimed to have done the deed, he certainly took the rewards and was very non committal to Bean's approaches after the war, so if you had done it, you would be open to any questions wouldn't you. As I said before, looks to me as though it was preferred to be known that an allied airman had out done Germany's best, good for moral old boy!

The only nonsense Darren is your flaming, incoherent interruption of the Gallipoli thread and silly comment about Brown being "an opportunistic liar". Calm down a bit and look at the evidence. Go and read the scans I just posted and then comment further.

Brown obviously believed for some time that he had shot R. down. At some point he came to doubt it and made no further claims. Very sensible; Brown was no blowhard. The RAF obviously wanted badly to claim the victory, as did Brown at the time, before further information became available. Is your judgment really so superficial, or are you slandering Brown in the hopes of annoying me by damning a Canadian?

[2ndCMR]

Hi RDC,

what they did was probe the track of the bullet, from entry to exit, and someone with a wound that close to the heart could not have flown for over a mile.

DB

It is quite futile to say what someone "could not" or "would not" have done. When the adrenaline starts to flow some people are capable of super-human strength and endurance: a man secured to stretcher with 1000Kg breaking point web straps snapping them, a man high on drugs taking 12 men to hold him down, the grandmother who lifts a car off her grandchild, etc. etc.. Medical science hasn't explained these cases; they can't. Such feats break 'the rules' of human physiology. If you know anything about ballistics in combat, MANY men kept coming in a charge when the 'laws' of ballistics said they should have been dead on the ground.

Look into it if you're curious.

[Signals]

Sounds like there is a lot of wishful thinking going on in this case... Other people have done research since then, now we have the Baron chasing two Camels? Thought it was one....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/redbaron/theories.html

Chasing Two Sopwith Camels? In accounts collected in the 1930s, at least three eyewitnesses claimed that the Baron was pursuing two Sopwith Camels at the time he was brought down by ground fire. One of the most detailed of these claims was by Sergeant A. G. Franklyn, who was in charge of an Australian antiaircraft battery and claims to have shot down the Baron with his Lewis gun. Subsequent research has suggested that Franklyn probably confused the Red Baron's demise with his battery's downing of a German airplane the day after the Baron's death in a slightly different location.

http://www.anzacs.net/who-killed-the-Red-Baron.htm

Lets put things this way, my comments were base around some of the intrusional methods you use on other peoples threads, and the slander at the Baron, so i'm just saying if you are going to be balance then you can make that assessment of Brown, or are you defending him because he is a Canadian. If he distanced himself from what was written in MY FIGHT WITH RICTHTHOFEN as not his own, it was hardly a howling protest, take the elevator evidence. Then again, with the evidence you have kindly supplied, and all the other evidence from Bean, he should only rate a passing mention and the AA Batterys properly recognized, so no more on Brown from me. It will never be known who fired the fatal shot from those men on the ground, only the most likely.

[akduerden]

You have all got it wrong... it was Snoopy!

[Signals]

Well said

[Gunner Bailey]

John,

there is no real reason to have a axe to grind, after all of us were on the same side fighting for the same cause and

whoever got him I say good on yer.

If I may assume one thing though, could that shot have been the last one of a burst that may have been elevating either up or

down query. Also and I am no ballistic expert is it possible that different rounds because of say slightly different impellant

loads in the cartridge have given a different trajectory to a bullet. I just dont know and I dont think we will ever know.

David

Hi David

It would be understandable if people patriotically supported either a Canadian or Australian 'solution' to this mystery, as it was obviously a prestigious victory for the allies. It seems clear to me that Brown may not have even got a single hit on the triplane and that the likelihood of the bullet coming from an Australian weapon, be it machine gun or rifle is high.

As you say, whoever did it 'good on yer' and I doubt if the actual truth will ever be known. If only the .303 round had not been so ubiquitous!

John

[Gary Charles]

Freiherr von Richthofen was a very talented and skillful pilot, a loyal and dedicated Offizier and a brilliant and inspirational leader of men. Some of his victories were not included in the total of 80 credited to him, therefore his real number of victories was more. Unlike the Allies he did not leave his new pilots out on a limb to be shot down by the enemy, but rather protected them and trained them until they gained experience and skill. Not so the British, where the life expectancy of a new pilot was just a handful of missions. Although wounded in the head Freiherr von Richtofen returned to duty despite being urged to take a ground job. He carried out his duty with dedication, loyalty and cheerfulness until the end. To call such a talented leader opportunistic is to display unbridled ignorance.

[Southside Bucky]

...Some of his victories were not included in the total of 80 credited to him, therefore his real number of victories was more...

On the contrary: 80 victories could/should actually be 75...Look up his victory numbers; 9, 15, 21, 22 & 54.

You won't find any Allied casualties that tally with them.

Regards.

Bucky

[Jasta72s]

One should see both sides of the coin.

Reportedly Manfred von Richthofen has scored (at least) 10 victories more but he has given these victories to younger pilots who did take part in his attacks. Another example for his support of promising young fighter pilots under his command.

[Southside Bucky]

Hi Jasta72s.

With due respect, may I ask; where does your information come from regarding these 10 (or more) extra victories?

I consider myself reasonably well read on the subject, but I've never read or heard anything about MvR relinquishing victories to other pilots.

Conversely, his 20th Nov 1916 victory (No.9) should actually be credited only to his fellow Jasta 2 pilot; Oblt. Stefan Kirmaier, but MvR also made a successful claim for the same aircraft: BE2c 2767, of 15 Sqn.

Regards.

Bucky

[2ndCMR]

Sounds like there is a lot of wishful thinking going on in this case... Other people have done research since then, now we have the Baron chasing two Camels? Thought it was one....

When attempting to understand historical events I always find it useful to imagine myself in that place and time. What did the witnesses see? Why did things appear to them as they report them? You get the idea?

Now, we have three aircraft zipping along 'nap of the earth' to use a contemporary phrase. Have a look at the flight plan I posted. It is drawn over original air photos of area that concerns us. With several aircraft approaching more or less head on, as you can see they were approaching Franklyn's position, flying quite close to one another, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to tell which one was the closest and which the farthest etc. No doubt this was why Franklyn thought R. was chasing two Sopwiths when he was actually 'in the middle'. An easy mistake to make.

Were this mistake a serious issue with the reliability of his evidence, don't you think Nowarra and Brown would have mentioned the fact? That they didn't, suggests to me that they considered such an "error" so easy and likely, that it did not warrant comment.

Was Franklyn attempting to 'improve' his story, don't you think he would have omitted anything likely to detract from it?

As you point out, a number of other witnesses made the same error! It's really not that complicated when we apply a little reason, is it?

Now, it gets better. Looking at the animated flight plan shown on the second of your links, it seems that Brown actually overtook R. at one point and both his and May's aircraft were ahead of Richthofen's as they approached Franklyn's position!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/redbaron/theories.html

Chasing Two Sopwith Camels? In accounts collected in the 1930s, at least three eyewitnesses claimed that the Baron was pursuing two Sopwith Camels at the time he was brought down by ground fire. One of the most detailed of these claims was by Sergeant A. G. Franklyn, who was in charge of an Australian antiaircraft battery and claims to have shot down the Baron with his Lewis gun. Subsequent research has suggested that Franklyn probably confused the Red Baron's demise with his battery's downing of a German airplane the day after the Baron's death in a slightly different location.

I assume you wrote this before reading Nowarra and Brown, as there is not the slightest chance that I can see, of Franklyn confusing two incidents. The trophy hunters descended on R.'s plane within minutes. Word of his death circulated among the troops in the area within hours. I find it incredible to suggest that Franklyn would confuse this with an incident the next day!

However, perhaps you have some evidence I'm not aware of, so why don't you post it up?

http://www.anzacs.net/who-killed-the-Red-Baron.htm

Lets put things this way, my comments were base around some of the intrusional methods you use on other peoples threads, and the slander at the Baron, so i'm just saying if you are going to be balance then you can make that assessment of Brown, or are you defending him because he is a Canadian. If he distanced himself from what was written in MY FIGHT WITH RICTHTHOFEN as not his own, it was hardly a howling protest, take the elevator evidence. Then again, with the evidence you have kindly supplied, and all the other evidence from Bean, he should only rate a passing mention and the AA Batterys properly recognized, so no more on Brown from me. It will never be known who fired the fatal shot from those men on the ground, only the most likely.

"Intrusional methods", eh?! For example? (Your outburst in the Gallipoli thread perhaps?)

I haven't "slandered" Richthofen at all, sorry. I've just noted his personality and behaviour and how it reflected his origins and cultural milieu. I got a chuckle out the apologia on your second link, trying to put a nice gloss on his 'trophy mentality'. Nowarra engages in some of the same antics, interspersed with little outbursts of teutonic fury at this and that when manners and such Englanderei become too much for him!

Brown showed a lot of guts going after R., much more than R. showed going after May, who his trained eye spotted as an easy target. It seems R. had become a little unbalanced since his injury and got what is sometimes called "target fixation". He gave up and turned back, but too late.

[2ndCMR]

Hi Jasta72s.

With due respect, may I ask; where does your information come from regarding these 10 (or more) extra victories?

I consider myself reasonably well read on the subject, but I've never read or heard anything about MvR relinquishing victories to other pilots.

Conversely, his 20th Nov 1916 victory (No.9) should actually be credited only to his fellow Jasta 2 pilot; Oblt. Stefan Kirmaier, but MvR also made a successful claim for the same aircraft: BE2c 2767, of 15 Sqn.

Regards.

Bucky

Sounds like it's time for a new thread: "Who was the highest scoring ace of WWI?"

Go ahead Darren, make my day!

[Signals]

Sounds like it's time for a new thread: "Who was the highest scoring ace of WWI?"Go ahead Darren, make my day!

Better still how about a thread where reseachers who know the most on these subjects can actually do a list with bogus kills removed and ajust the score of Aces, it will be quite humerous to see somene slip to single figures. Not only that but you'll find the address for the Austrlaian War Memorial on this thread, maybe as a good will gesture you could post the triplanes pilot seat to them, as really it does have more merit to be there.

It is quite futile to say what someone "could not" or "would not" have done. When the adrenaline starts to flow some people are capable of super-human strength and endurance: a man secured to stretcher with 1000Kg breaking point web straps snapping them, a man high on drugs taking 12 men to hold him down, the grandmother who lifts a car off her grandchild, etc. etc.. Medical science hasn't explained these cases; they can't. Such feats break 'the rules' of human physiology. If you know anything about ballistics in combat, MANY men kept coming in a charge when the 'laws' of ballistics said they should have been dead on the ground. In this case these comments look like utter rubbish as i'm totally talking about this incident and the evidence at hand suggests nothing of the sort, or is this one last roll of the dice to say, well maybe it could still be Brown after all. I know it must be disapointing to see one of your boys get on the world stage, only to see the rug pulled out, but you will get over it.

Now on your bible of the incident, you are quick to dismiss other research outright as it does not fit into this masterful work in your posession. I'm afraid i will do the same here, he cleary states the Baron was persuing 2 Camels, this simply did not happen, so lets dismiss it now. R. at one point and both his and May's aircraft were ahead of Richthofen's as they approached Franklyn's position, Brown was higher and not in the chase when he was shot at from the ground! Hardly even looking like being chased. Now read Franklyn's words carefully, 'I immediately rushed to my lewis gun which i had on a tripod and fired at him very closel range about 30 rounds, one round in every 4 being a tracer bullet so that the course of the bullet could be observed, i then saw him crash to the ground. To be objective here, where did he hit him? No mention of it i can see and with many more taking a pot shot it is not the greatest detective work to say it was Franklyn. Was it the cockpit, the tailplane, where? Would love to know as this is important.

While I haven't seen the program referenced in that article, I'm more impressed by the research conducted by Nowarra and Brown who were working when many of the principals were still alive to be interviewed. Try looking over the cubical wall here, there is other research other than this book, so if you haven't looked at these other items how can you make such a statement, how can you be more impressed. This must be the best as they drew on individual offcial reports on no less than 10 witnesses, I guess here i can concede here it must far outweigh Bean's work and the trivial number of men he interviewed and corresponded with. Not only that but to back up the Franklyn claim we can see it pertinant to remark here, that Franklyn passed a course of instruction BLA BLA BLA. What does that have to do with it when many men were taking pot shots and one got lucky, give to the chap who has done a course!. Then again if it was Franklyn as you suggest as the most likely, you can still send the pilot seat as he was attached to an Australain regiment, more of a link you see.

haven't made a study of Richtofen or his demise, a much over-rated pilot and matter as far as I'm concerned.I've just noted his personality and behaviour and how it reflected his origins and cultural milieu. So you have or haven't? Please expand.

"Intrusional methods", eh?! For example? (Your outburst in the Gallipoli thread perhaps?). Exactly, just taking a leaf from your book there and your still bringing it up, it is O.K. isn't it, just sorry i can't point out some of your postings on another threads, alas they were removed for?

Anyway, speaking of the Gallipoli thread, there was another link for you to post your claims, haven't seen it yet, and remember you still stand by your words.

[2ndCMR]

Sounds like it's time for a new thread: "Who was the highest scoring ace of WWI?"Go ahead Darren, make my day!

Better still how about a thread where reseachers who know the most on these subjects can actually do a list with bogus kills removed and ajust the score of Aces, it will be quite humerous to see somene slip to single figures. Not only that but you'll find the address for the Austrlaian War Memorial on this thread, maybe as a good will gesture you could post the triplanes pilot seat to them, as really it does have more merit to be there.

Well, I'm starting to question to value of responding to posts of this kind...posts written in such haste that you can't even correct the misspelling which the board software kindly points out for you with those little underlinings...have you noticed? Yes, it would be nice if the aviation experts would post up along those lines. Why don't you start a new thread so they can?

What exactly are you on about with the "triplane seat"?

It is quite futile to say what someone "could not" or "would not" have done. When the adrenaline starts to flow some people are capable of super-human strength and endurance: a man secured to stretcher with 1000Kg breaking point web straps snapping them, a man high on drugs taking 12 men to hold him down, the grandmother who lifts a car off her grandchild, etc. etc.. Medical science hasn't explained these cases; they can't. Such feats break 'the rules' of human physiology. If you know anything about ballistics in combat, MANY men kept coming in a charge when the 'laws' of ballistics said they should have been dead on the ground. In this case these comments look like utter rubbish as i'm totally talking about this incident and the evidence at hand suggests nothing of the sort, or is this one last roll of the dice to say, well maybe it could still be Brown after all. I know it must be disapointing to see one of your boys get on the world stage, only to see the rug pulled out, but you will get over it.

Oh, dear. Shall I spell it out in words of one syllable? I've never asserted that Roy Brown shot down R. I could care less who shot him down...as I think I said already somewhere in another thread...presumably you didn't notice. What "evidence at hand" are you referring to? Since we cannot prove conclusively who fired the fatal shot, except that it cannot be Brown (if the autopsy correctly analyzed the bullet's direction of travel, and I assume that it did), it is therefore impossible to say conclusively at what point the fatal bullet struck R. or how long he lived after that impact. If you can't understand that, don't worry, others can.

Now on your bible of the incident, you are quick to dismiss other research outright as it does not fit into this masterful work in your posession. I'm afraid i will do the same here, he cleary states the Baron was persuing 2 Camels, this simply did not happen, so lets dismiss it now. R. at one point and both his and May's aircraft were ahead of Richthofen's as they approached Franklyn's position, Brown was higher and not in the chase when he was shot at from the ground! Hardly even looking like being chased. Now read Franklyn's words carefully, 'I immediately rushed to my lewis gun which i had on a tripod and fired at him very closel range about 30 rounds, one round in every 4 being a tracer bullet so that the course of the bullet could be observed, i then saw him crash to the ground. To be objective here, where did he hit him? No mention of it i can see and with many more taking a pot shot it is not the greatest detective work to say it was Franklyn. Was it the cockpit, the tailplane, where? Would love to know as this is important.

My bible is the K.J.V. old chum, (though I do like the Peshitta Text too) what's yours? I looked over the links you provided. I didn't see anything that rebuts Franklyn's claims. Can you refute the rebuttal of Buie and Evans by Nowarra and Brown? Have you some evidence or account to support your comments?

While I haven't seen the program referenced in that article, I'm more impressed by the research conducted by Nowarra and Brown who were working when many of the principals were still alive to be interviewed. Try looking over the cubical wall here, there is other research other than this book, so if you haven't looked at these other items how can you make such a statement, how can you be more impressed. This must be the best as they drew on individual offcial reports on no less than 10 witnesses, I guess here i can concede here it must far outweigh Bean's work and the trivial number of men he interviewed and corresponded with.

I don't know, I haven't see Bean's writings on the matter, the Wed Bawon and his wunderful werks are not my hobby! Why don't you stop fulminating and post some of this material for others to enjoy? Presumably the purpose of this thread is to help others learn. I'm happy to be one of them; you?

Not only that but to back up the Franklyn claim we can see it pertinant to remark here, that Franklyn passed a course of instruction BLA BLA BLA. What does that have to do with it when many men were taking pot shots and one got lucky, give to the chap who has done a course!. Then again if it was Franklyn as you suggest as the most likely, you can still send the pilot seat as he was attached to an Australain regiment, more of a link you see.

It seems you haven't read the scans, as you refer only to the fragments that I mentioned in my own text. That to me suggests you're not here to learn anything, so it seems I'm wasting my time replying to your posts. I'm getting clear signs this is a 'patriotic thing' for you; so of course you conclude I am similarly motivated? Nope. The Canadian record in the RFC/RAF/RCAF needs no defense from me, with five of the six top Allied aces in WWI IIRC, 'we' can well afford to dispense with Richthofen. There he's all yours, now go and fight the British for him...oh, I don't think they care either...

I haven't made a study of Richtofen or his demise, a much over-rated pilot and matter as far as I'm concerned.I've just noted his personality and behaviour and how it reflected his origins and cultural milieu. So you have or haven't? Please expand.

How much clearer can I make it? Do you want to discuss German 'dueling' societies etc.?

"Intrusional methods", eh?! For example? (Your outburst in the Gallipoli thread perhaps?). Exactly, just taking a leaf from your book there and your still bringing it up, it is O.K. isn't it, just sorry i can't point out some of your postings on another threads, alas they were removed for?

Second time of asking: can you cite a post of mine that remotely corresponds in intemperance, irrelevance and incoherence to your Gallipolli outburst? The only thread I posted to which has been deleted to my knowledge was a thread on German atrocities in Belgium and France wherein one of our leading German apologists (double entendre intended) had to finally admit that he didn't know what he was talking about on the subject of German atrocities in Belgium and France. In the interests of all-round 'mateyness' apparently, the thread was deleted - in a forum about war, disagreement is more than some people can stomach apparently! A moderator chopped some bits out of one other thread where you and I were posting also. There was nothing that violated thread guidelines, nor any allegation that such were violated; it was just an abortive attempt at editorial censorship which merely served to make the thread confusing. A few months later the anonymous editor inserted a little note saying 'who-dunnit' IIRC.

Anyway, speaking of the Gallipoli thread, there was another link for you to post your claims, haven't seen it yet, and remember you still stand by your words.

I don't imagine that makes anymore sense to anyone else than it does to me: precisely none! ...Oh, wait a minute, you're talking about the two links you posted to other forums? Sorry, I spend too much time on this forum. I'm not registering on some other forum to debate HMAS Sydney or Anthony Meiers or whatever the matter was. Start a thread here if you like and we can 'have at it' to our heart's content! You'll have to send me a link though, as I don't often scan the new threads/posts etc.

As for this thread, if you want to post some factual material on the various claims I'll be interested to read it. Otherwise, I suspect you've poisoned your own well here and this thread is probably about done for that reason.

[Signals]

Well, I'm starting to question to value of responding to posts of this kind...posts written in such haste that you can't even correct the misspelling which the board software kindly points out for you with those little underlinings...have you noticed? Yes, it would be nice if the aviation experts would post up along those lines. Why don't you start a new thread so they can?How do you spell his surname?Your way? I must remember the classic 2ndcmr does not make a spelling error, have a good look old chap.

I don't know, I haven't see Bean's writings on the matter, the Wed Bawon and his wunderful werks are not my hobby! Well yes i can see by your massive library on the matter. Why don't you stop fulminating and post some of this material for others to enjoy? Are you suggesting that other users of this forum enjoy your posts and material and have their views belittled, believe me, the complete opposite is the case from the PM's i have been sent, oh not the pals again! Presumably the purpose of this thread is to help others learn. Turned a corner have we?

My bible is the K.J.V. old chum, (though I do like the Peshitta Text too) what's yours? I looked over the links you provided. I didn't see anything that rebuts Franklyn's claims. Can you refute the rebuttal of Buie and Evans by Nowarra and Brown? Who said it was Evans or Buie, not me, they were discounted some time back. Have you some evidence or account to support your comments? Again, i'm within my right to question this, where did he hit the triplane? Still no answer, he does not say anything about hitting it. If i could type the question slower i would.

Second time of asking: can you cite a post of mine that remotely corresponds in intemperance, irrelevance and incoherence to your Gallipolli outburst?Hosptial ships, hard to prove as most was chopped out by the moderator wasn't it. But i do remember a lot of the content and fair enough it was cut out. But i do feel a slight rumble from your end here, as i said, just taking a leaf from your book.

I don't imagine that makes anymore sense to anyone else than it does to me: precisely none! ...Oh, wait a minute, you're talking about the two links you posted to other forums? Sorry, I spend too much time on this forum. I'm not registering on some other forum to debate HMAS Sydney or Anthony Meiers or whatever the matter was. Start a thread here if you like and we can 'have at it' to our heart's content! You'll have to send me a link though, as I don't often scan the new threads/posts etc. The classic backout from the Sydney comments, can't start the tread here as it is out of the boundires of the forum. Strange the Sydney comments were about something that did not happen, and based on a dated and flawed book. Great research.