Guest JTullfan Posted 3 July , 2004 Share Posted 3 July , 2004 P.F. Fullard scored 40 victories in the space of a few short months in 1917. If it wasn't for the fact that he broke his leg playing soccer, he could have been the highest scoring ace of the war. Just a thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 4 July , 2004 Share Posted 4 July , 2004 If it wasn't for the fact that he broke his leg playing soccer, he could have been the highest scoring ace of the war. ...Or been shot down and killed before he achieved that feat!!! Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted 4 July , 2004 Share Posted 4 July , 2004 One could say the same thing about the Canadian Maj.D.R.MacLaren, who first scored in March,1918, and tallied 54 victories before breaking his leg in a wrestling match in early October of the same year. My own favourite is William Claxton, another Canadian. Born in June,1899, he was a remarkable pilot, and between 27 May and 13 August,1918, he scored 37 victories, several before his 19th birthday, before being shot down and wounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 4 July , 2004 Share Posted 4 July , 2004 Terry A drawing of Capt P F Fullard's machine, Nieuport 17 B3459, is below. Cheers Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckman Posted 5 July , 2004 Share Posted 5 July , 2004 Fullard might be the highest scoring pilot of the war. Most top aces were exceptionally good shots with any weapon, think MvR, Bishop, Barker etc. Coupled with good flying skills, they could get decisive hits with limited opportunities. Fullard (almost uniquely) maintained his victories were primarily down to piloting skill rather than marksmanship. Interesting fellow, but he was due an extended rest when he broke his leg, so he probably woudn't have got many more even without that fateful game of footie. Terry - MacLaren would have run out of time. And if you are remembering Claxton, don't forget Frederick McCall, his partner in crime. Bertie Higgins wrote a song about them, remember: "We got 'em all, Just like Claxton and McCall, Starring in our own two-man show Flyin' away to Key Largo..." Sorry for the tragic flashback PS:Mr Tullfan - are you into traditional agriculture or would that be "Songs from the Wood" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTullfan Posted 6 July , 2004 Share Posted 6 July , 2004 Fullard might be the highest scoring pilot of the war. Most top aces were exceptionally good shots with any weapon, think MvR, Bishop, Barker etc. Coupled with good flying skills, they could get decisive hits with limited opportunities. Fullard (almost uniquely) maintained his victories were primarily down to piloting skill rather than marksmanship. Interesting fellow, but he was due an extended rest when he broke his leg, so he probably woudn't have got many more even without that fateful game of footie. Terry - MacLaren would have run out of time. And if you are remembering Claxton, don't forget Frederick McCall, his partner in crime. Bertie Higgins wrote a song about them, remember: "We got 'em all, Just like Claxton and McCall, Starring in our own two-man show Flyin' away to Key Largo..." Sorry for the tragic flashback PS:Mr Tullfan - are you into traditional agriculture or would that be "Songs from the Wood" That would be Songs from the Wood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biplane pilot Posted 7 July , 2004 Share Posted 7 July , 2004 Fullard was without doubt a brave, capable flier. But he's also a prime example of the folly of the RFC scoring system. Of his 40 credited victories, 15 were assessed as "destroyed." Bishop--whatever one makes of him--claimed 55 "destroyed" out of 72. The other top British aces in terms of e/a destroyed or captured (shares counted as wholes) were McCudden 47, Barker 45, and Mannock 41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckman Posted 7 July , 2004 Share Posted 7 July , 2004 Fullard was without doubt a brave, capable flier. But he's also a prime example of the folly of the RFC scoring system. Of his 40 credited victories, 15 were assessed as "destroyed." Bishop--whatever one makes of him--claimed 55 "destroyed" out of 72. The other top British aces in terms of e/a destroyed or captured (shares counted as wholes) were McCudden 47, Barker 45, and Mannock 41. BP (although I'm thinking the real initals are BT?), I think you're missing the point. Firstly the RFC/RNAS/RAF would have had little interest in claims compared to other countries or other wars. That this the province of people like you - historians. Their interest was in winning the war as best they could and they weren't going to establish whether they were doing that by comparing Fullard's 40 to Lothar von Richthofen's 40 and arguing about who was really the higher scorer. The British scoring system does not bear comparison to other systems, but it is internally consistent - again being mindful that it had little to do with measuring their own success or failure in the bigger sense. Useful for awards and such like, but rarely if ever the sole basis for them. You can argue the merits of the system, but Fullard was the 12th highest scoring British Empire pilot. End of story. As for counting DES but not OOC's you have imposed a system that is even more bizarre than the system you describe as "folly". I'm sure you have access to at least as much material as I, and I can find numerous examples of Destroyed claims that were wrong and more numerous claims of OOC's that are provable victories. So why ignore OOC's completely, just because many such claims were demonstrably mistaken? Because they are inconvenient? Do you have any evidence as to the reliability of DES claims versus OOC's? I would be most interested to see it if you do. Suppose we find that DES claims are 90% reliable and OOC's 10% (arbitrary figures). So we then massage Bishops total of 72 (55 DES + 17 OOC) to give 50 DES (.9 x 55) + 2 OOC (.1 x 17) to give a total of 52? Clearly nonsensical... Perhaps it would be more relevant to see how many (if any) of Fullards OOC's match with reported German losses (which are themselves more problematic than generally acknowledged), and even compare that to the consistency of others records*. Then you might be in a position to pronounce a more reasoned and reasonable judgement... Disappointed Duckperson. *IIRC McCudden's and Mannock's claims have been pretty thoroughly researched and found to be pretty reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biplane pilot Posted 11 July , 2004 Share Posted 11 July , 2004 There's much to ponder here, but the salient points appear to be: RFC system was internally consistent? Hardly think so, old chap. Otherwise how to explain almost a 100% variance in the ratio of "destroyed" credits among the big names? Collishaw 48% to Barker & Cobby running around 90%. Disappointment, indeed! Do I have the figures on actual versus claimed credits? No, but there are gents who do, such as Chris Shores, Russell Guest, Frank Bailey, etc. They studied some 1918 figures and concluded that about 1/6 of RAF total credits resulted in a hard kill. Discounting the 40% that were OOCs, that leaves about 1 in 4 "destroyed" that were, well, destroyed. FWIW, nobody else adopted the British scoring system (after all, why would they?) but the Yanks managed to go one worse. Their squadrons operated variously under French & British control and therefore had both systems, but the French Front units added their own wrinkles. In addition to OOCs there were nebulous credits such as "dived east" which ranked with crashed in flames. No wonder some Americans think they won the war... The main point is: without looking at the policies behind the numbers, there's no valid comparison between British apples and German/French/Italian/Etc oranges. But many people assume that every victory represents a "destroyed," hence the skewed perception regarding the Brits. What's also forgotten is the reason anybody kept score in the first place: to assess damage to the enemy. The entire OOC concept was guaranteed to inflate that perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTullfan Posted 16 July , 2004 Share Posted 16 July , 2004 There's much to ponder here, but the salient points appear to be: RFC system was internally consistent? Hardly think so, old chap. Otherwise how to explain almost a 100% variance in the ratio of "destroyed" credits among the big names? Collishaw 48% to Barker & Cobby running around 90%. Disappointment, indeed! Do I have the figures on actual versus claimed credits? No, but there are gents who do, such as Chris Shores, Russell Guest, Frank Bailey, etc. They studied some 1918 figures and concluded that about 1/6 of RAF total credits resulted in a hard kill. Discounting the 40% that were OOCs, that leaves about 1 in 4 "destroyed" that were, well, destroyed. FWIW, nobody else adopted the British scoring system (after all, why would they?) but the Yanks managed to go one worse. Their squadrons operated variously under French & British control and therefore had both systems, but the French Front units added their own wrinkles. In addition to OOCs there were nebulous credits such as "dived east" which ranked with crashed in flames. No wonder some Americans think they won the war... The main point is: without looking at the policies behind the numbers, there's no valid comparison between British apples and German/French/Italian/Etc oranges. But many people assume that every victory represents a "destroyed," hence the skewed perception regarding the Brits. What's also forgotten is the reason anybody kept score in the first place: to assess damage to the enemy. The entire OOC concept was guaranteed to inflate that perception. Obviously, many of you have experienced the heated debates that abound on the Aerodrome and Aces Forum with regard to this very topic..... I have just finished reading "Albert Ball" by Chaz Bowyer, and it would seem that Ball was very meticulous in his claims. He only made a claim if he was fairly sure that he had brought down his enemy. To be victorious over your enemy, surely, is the point here. Whether he lived to fight another day or not. At that moment in time your enemy is disabled, and to my mind that counts as a victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 2 June , 2005 Share Posted 2 June , 2005 I understand that there was an autobiography/ biography of PF Fullard (not sure which!). Does anyone know what it was called? Or even better... does anyone have a copy? I need to check one particular fact. Thanks, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastair Fraser Posted 3 June , 2005 Share Posted 3 June , 2005 I understand that there was an autobiography/ biography of PF Fullard (not sure which!). Does anyone know what it was called? Or even better... does anyone have a copy? I need to check one particular fact. Thanks, AGWR <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I cannot claim to be an expert on the RFC/RAF but what you are probaby after is "Captain P. F. Fullard, DSO, MC & Bar", by T. B. A. Graves, M v R Publications, Liskeard, 1988. At 32 pages it is a slim volume. The British Library has a copy and it is probably traceable at Abe Books, Bookfinder and the usual sources. From my own fairly meagre experience of researching the war in the air 1914-18 I find that overclaiming was a fact of life and in most cases done in good faith. One combat in April 1918 over Pozieres seemed to have yielded about 5 claims and other couple rejected. As far as I can tell one Albatross DV was in fact shot down. Hope this is of some help Regards Alastair Fraser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Smith Posted 3 June , 2005 Share Posted 3 June , 2005 I cannot claim to be an expert on the RFC/RAF but what you are probaby after is "Captain P. F. Fullard, DSO, MC & Bar", by T. B. A. Graves, M v R Publications, Liskeard, 1988. At 32 pages it is a slim volume. The British Library has a copy and it is probably traceable at Abe Books, Bookfinder and the usual sources. From my own fairly meagre experience of researching the war in the air 1914-18 I find that overclaiming was a fact of life and in most cases done in good faith. One combat in April 1918 over Pozieres seemed to have yielded about 5 claims and other couple rejected. As far as I can tell one Albatross DV was in fact shot down. Hope this is of some help Regards Alastair Fraser <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the theif Graves published anything it was more than likely plagerised from Cross and Cockade or similar publications. I would implore anyone who knows of this lowlife (and those that have never heard of him) never to purchase anything that he has reportedly written. To summerise he is a thieving b*****d. BP, do not place to much emphasis on Messers Guest, Franks, Bailey etc works. They are indeed outstanding, but should be used as the skeleton of any researchers work. Russell admitted on the Aerodrome a few years ago that there were citars they couldn't find when writting ATT, such as the RNAS at Dunkirk. So perhaps researchers/soon to be published authors such as Adrian Hellwig and his Dallas book (soon to be release by Grub Street) may have accessed materal those gentleman did not. Free plug Duck you make some great points and as I have come to expect. Regards, Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 4 June , 2005 Share Posted 4 June , 2005 Thank you both for your replies. I will see if I can track a copy down. Apparently, a biography (not sure if it's this one) claims that he played for Norwich City, which I am pretty sure is incorrect. I was hoping to find some evidence to support this statement. Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 4 June , 2005 Share Posted 4 June , 2005 AGWR There's mention of Fullard playing soccer as a 'centre half' for Norwich City Football Club in Christopher Shores' British and Empire Aces of World War I; ISBN 1 841 76 377 2. I hope that this helps you. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 4 June , 2005 Share Posted 4 June , 2005 Gareth, Thanks for this information. Does it provide any further details. eg number of appearances, dates etc? Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 4 June , 2005 Share Posted 4 June , 2005 AGWR Not really. All it says it that he played for the club in 1914. Cheers Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 4 June , 2005 Share Posted 4 June , 2005 Gareth, Thanks for this info as well! It's possible that he played under an assumed name, like Bill Shankly (for one) did in the Second World War. Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now