Billy Bishop's first combat sortie?

[Bernoullis]

Trevor, thanks for sharing this material, very interesting stuff!

[alex revell]

Trevor,

Thanks for that information. I must admit that I've never seen these before, and it seems neither has anyone else, otherwise I'm sure they would have mentioned it.In my own case, it's a long time since I was at the PRO/NA, and it was outside my remit in those days, anyway. The point is, why didn't Kilduff dig these out and

include them in his book. However, I still stand by my point, that knowing the qualifications for a VC, not

met by the circumstances, why did Scott make the recommendation, unless, of course he had a bar to the

DSO in mind. I notice that the recommendation for the VC was made by the General Officer Commanding 3rd

Brigade. Who was that at the time? He should have known the qualifications for the award were not met.

Everybody, I'm having trouble with text not wrapping round at the end of each line. I adjust this manually,

but it results in strange formatting when posted. Is anyone else having this trouble?

[alex revell]

Trevor,

Apologies. I see the GOC was Higgins.

[fetubi]

C'est bon!

[r gannon]

Fascinating - no mention of course of any witness.

Cheers Russ

[bif]

Fascinating - no mention of course of any witness.

Cheers Russ

Obviously, he didn't know how to get the germans at the aerodrome to attest for him ?

[alowe56]

My problem with that book is that an American author is writing about British matters. As I tried to convey in a CCI book review, the mis-identification of aeroplane types in photo captions says a lot - Sopwith Gunbus as a MF Se.11, BE12b as a BE12!! I've trawled through hundreds of logbooks over the years and never seen a member of a squadron working up for operational service flying the Channel for operational experience. From what I've seen, observers at that time were, largely, NCOs drafted into the job and new pilots were eased in with a few familiarisation flights. My own opinion is that it's another example of Bishop ' shooting a line' and I suspect that Willy Fry's posthumous testimony holds many truths.

So, it's the author's fault if the publisher makes a mistake with the photos? And American historians should only stick to American history? Maybe British historians should stick to British history and leave Canadian history alone too.

Not really my opinion, I'm just saying, based on the above, maybe that's the way to go at it.

Trevor,

Thanks for that information. I must admit that I've never seen these before, and it seems neither has anyone else, otherwise I'm sure they would have mentioned it.In my own case, it's a long time since I was at the PRO/NA, and it was outside my remit in those days, anyway. The point is, why didn't Kilduff dig these out and

include them in his book. However, I still stand by my point, that knowing the qualifications for a VC, not

met by the circumstances, why did Scott make the recommendation, unless, of course he had a bar to the

DSO in mind. I notice that the recommendation for the VC was made by the General Officer Commanding 3rd

Brigade. Who was that at the time? He should have known the qualifications for the award were not met.

Everybody, I'm having trouble with text not wrapping round at the end of each line. I adjust this manually,

but it results in strange formatting when posted. Is anyone else having this trouble?

Actually, Peter did include them as resource. They're listed on page 168 of his book.

[alowe56]

Alex,

I asked earlier on TA forum as to whether or not BB's log book(s) survived (vis vis the claimed 29 Oct 1915 sortie). PK’s rather oddly worded reply was:

“Some of Bishop's pilot log books survive (general 1916-17 and No. 60 Squadron, RFC logs). The documents section (pp. 167-168) of my bibliography lists archival resources I consulted. Further information about my research sources also appears in my book.”

Errol

So far as I am aware, observers didn't keep log books. Their flight time was not considered essential. Pilots on the other hand, always kept log books. Their total flying time was considered essential.

[Errol Martyn]

So, it's the author's fault if the publisher makes a mistake with the photos? .

Any author worth his salt checks the galley proofs before signing off on the printing of the book. No point blaming the publisher on this one.

Errol

[Errol Martyn]

So far as I am aware, observers didn't keep log books. Their flight time was not considered essential. Pilots on the other hand, always kept log books. Their total flying time was considered essential.

Unfortunately KP's reference to 'general' and 'logs' confirms his lack of knowledge about British record keeping. Pilots kept a Pilots Log Book not a 'general' one. Squadrons kept a Squadron Record Book. His ignorance of British operations is further confirmed by his unqualified acceptance of Bishop's bizarre 1915 claim that he flew from England to France and over the lines and back in the one day while still under training in England and that the RFC was about make more such sorties.

Errol

[mickdavis]

So, it's the author's fault if the publisher makes a mistake with the photos? And American historians should only stick to American history? Maybe British historians should stick to British history and leave Canadian history alone too.

Not really my opinion, I'm just saying, based on the above, maybe that's the way to go at it.

Actually, Peter did include them as resource. They're listed on page 168 of his book.

It does work both ways. I'm totally unqualified to write about USAS/USNAS matters, unless they're related to units based in the UK & Ireland or attached to the RAF in France. Unfortunately for your argument, Canadians were flying with the RNAS/RFC/RAF and so people with an interest in such matters have a little more understanding. As far as my experience goes, authors submit photos and captions for their books and so any responsibility for mistakes falls on their heads alone. I'd hate to think that I could confuse, for example, a Standard J.1 for a Curtiss R.2.

[alex revell]

The Wonder Boy Hero.

Let’s take a look at the arrival of Bishop at 60 Squadron on 17 March 1917 with a fresh mind, a mind

which has no hindsight knowledge of his later exploits. In effect: that he is just another young pilot, one

of many, arriving at the squadron to which he has been posted from the pilots’ pool. He will not be

personally known to his squadron commanding officer, the Brig. Gen. commanding his Wing, and certainly not

by such an exalted person as the GOC commanding the RFC in the Field. Like all new pilots, he is an unknown quantity: inexperienced, and of untried ability and worth. Just another new pilot, eager, untested, hoping

to survive, but with his Flight Commander knowing that he will be lucky to survive his first month at the

Front. Let’s call him Lt X.

Lt X arrived at his squadron on the evening of 7 March 1917. It was an inauspicious time to arrive. The

previous day the squadron had suffered two casualties, the first since the previous November. One of these

casualties was its commanding officer.

Seven days after arriving at the squadron, although his record showed that he was an indifferent pilot, and

prone to crash his aeroplane, Lt X was chosen to give a demonstration of flying to the Brig.Gen.

Unfortunately, true to form, he crashed on landing, completely wrecking his aeroplane, a Nieuport, but

fortunately with no hurt to himself. As a result of the crash, he was commanded to appear before said

Brig Gen. After looking at Lt X’s file, the Brig.Gen. asked how many flying hours he had. Nearly twenty,

was the reply. This was a fairly respectable number at this stage of the war and the Brig. Gen., not without due cause, commented that with those number of hours, Lt X should have learnt to fly by now. Lt X explained

that as he had come in to land an eddy of wind had swirled round a hangar, caught his aeroplane and thrown it out of control. The Wing Commander reminded Lt X that he had been on the field himself, and that there

was no wind. Lt X agreed. The Wing commander then ordered that Lt X should be returned to flying school form more training. Lt X was crestfallen. He knew that no further training would improve his ability, and that

this could well mean the end of his ambition to be a fighter pilot.

That night, while Lt X was standing disconsolately at the bar in the squadron Mess, the new, replacement

Commanding Officer arrived. Although they had never met before, the new CO walked over the Lt X and,

familiarly addressing him by his nickname, an abbreviation of his surname, commiserated with him on his

being posted back to flying school. However, he told Lt X that he had explained to Wing that the squadron

was shorthanded and that he should stick around until his replacement arrived, probably within the next

couple of days. It wasn‘t true that the squadron was shorthanded, but Wing had swallowed his story. Lt X was overjoyed at the stay of posting. Even more so when his new CO told him that he could fly an offensive

patrol - his first - the next day.

The next day was fine and four Nieuports took off and flew to the front lines. After half an hour, three

enemy Albatros fighters were seen. The leader of Lt X’s patrol, made no attempt to evade these until they

attacked from behind. As they did so the leader pulled away in steep climbing turn, followed by the two

other Nieuports of the patrol. The fourth man, Lt X, being inexperienced was taken by surprise by this,

failed to keep with the other Nieuports, and was left fifty yards behind. Suddenly, an Albatros pilot, in

pursuit of the Flight Commander, flew underneath Lt X, filling his Aldis sight. Lt X pulled his triggers and fired into the enemy scout, sparks coming from the area of its cockpit. The enemy pilot dived away. Although it had been impressed upon him never to do so, Lt X followed. After diving for a thousand feet, the enemy

pilot pulled out of his dive, but Lt X was on his tail, only forty yards away and fired again, seeing his

bullets striking all round the German pilot, who again dived away. Lt X followed, his airspeed indicator

showing that he was diving at two hundred miles an hour - a remarkable speed for Nieuport 17 - but the

enemy machine was diving even faster. Lt X continued firing short bursts until the Albatros crashed into

a field. Lt X’s first victory, on his first patrol! He was delighted. But as he pulled his machine out of

the dive the engine coughed spluttered, and stopped. Despite furious pumping of his throttle (sic) his engine refused to restart and Lt X was suddenly conscious that enemy machine gun bullets were rattling around him. He was over hostile territory!

Lt X was furious at his own carelessness, and dismayed that he was facing capture. There was one slight

chance. He had a thousand feet of height. He put the Nieuport into a shallow dive and made for what he hoped was the British side of the Lines. As he glided lower he saw to his horror that the field he had selected for his forced landing was pitted with shell holes. Given his record of bad landings, he managed to land safely for once, between the deep shell craters, the Nieuport undamaged. Lt X scrambled out of his cockpit and

ran for cover in the nearest shell hole, pulling out his Very pistol as he saw four infantry running towards him. He would fight, sooner than surrender into captivity. But to his relief the approaching troops were

British; his luck had held: he had landed in friendly territory.

As darkness fell, the four troops led him back through the support trenches. Arriving safely, Lt X

telephoned his squadron and spoke to his CO, telling him that he was unhurt, but asking for a tender be

sent to recover his Nieuport, which was very near the German lines and under fire.

That night Lt X slept fitfully, laying on the ground in the mud and rain. At first light a battle commenced and Lt. X saw British cavalry forming up for a charge: a charge which ended in utter failure, horses and men stuck on the barbed wire and mown down by enemy machine gun fire. The battle having ended, Lt. X went back to his Nieuport to try to restart its engine, but it came under attack by two enemy aircraft. Luckily these

were driven off by British fire. Lt. X swung his propeller and to his joy the engine immediately burst into

life. Lt. X climbed into the cockpit, revved his engine and began to taxy through the shell holes, looking

for a level, undamaged strip to use for take off. Finding a suitable strip, Lt.X accelerated, shouting with

triumph as his Nieuport gathered speed. But after bouncing twice, almost at flying speed, there was a

resounding crash. The wheels had thrown up a large lump of mud, which had smashed the propeller. Lt.X climbed out of his cockpit and trudged back through the mud to a British anti-aircraft battery, which was luckily - and unusually - near the front line. The officer there confirmed that he had seen the Albatros crash in the combat of the day before, had confirmed it to Lt. X’s squadron, but had been asked where Lt. X was. The

officer not knowing, the squadron had reported Lt. X as ‘missing.’

That night, Lt. X borrowed a Ford motor car from the anti-aircraft battery to attempt to return to his

aerodrome, but after twelve hours of frustrating effort through the mud and desolation of the battlefield, he was unsuccessful and first light saw him back at the anti-aircraft battery. He arrived at the start of an artillery barrage and helped the gunners drag his Nieuport to a place of greater safety.

Lt. X spent the next morning with the anti-aircraft battery, but in the afternoon a salvage party arrived

from his aerodrome and began to dismantle his Nieuport.

Unknown, to Lt. X, a Canadian, the news of his first aerial victory - as yet unclaimed by him - had already winged its way across the Atlantic ocean to be reported by his local, hometown newspaper.

The Nieuport dismantled and loaded onto a tender, Lt. X and the rescue party set out for their aerodrome, but when darkness fell they were hopelessly stuck in the mud. Lt. X told the ground crew to get some sleep while he walked back to the aerodrome, which he reached at 6am. He had a warm welcome from his CO, delighted to

tell him that the Brig. Gen. had rescinded his posting; that he was staying with the squadron. The

Brig. Gen. had also sent his personal congratulations for the ‘good show’ put up by Lt.X. The squadron CO

also confirmed that he had been awarded the Albatros as his first victory, even though he had not yet

submitted his combat report claiming it, but on the word of the officer of the anti-aircraft battery, alone. ‘Get some sleep,’ the CO said, ’then you can take the next patrol.’

‘I’ve had lots of sleep.’ Lt X replied. ‘ I’d like to go up now.’

Righto’ said the CO, ‘you can come now, but take the lead won’t you? He explained that the other pilots on

the patrol, including himself, were all a bit bushed, in view of the fact that Lt X‘s sojourn in the trenches had left them shorthanded while he was away, his absence – one pilot - making extra duties for the whole

squadron.

So, after only having been on active duty in the squadron for just over seven days, including his spell

in the trenches, and having flown only one offensive patrol, Lt X found himself leading his CO and three

other pilots, all vastly more experienced than himself, in only his second offensive patrol. Luckily, they

saw no enemy aeroplanes during this patrol and on returning to the aerodrome, Lt X collapsed into a chair andslept for sixteen hours. He had lied that he had had plenty of sleep, having been awake for eighty-four hours. But despite this, he had led a patrol, putting his comrades at risk by his tiredness, not to mention his

inexperience in leading a Flight.

Over the following few days, Lt.X received personal congratulations on achieving his first aerial victory

from no less an exalted person than Trenchard the GOC of the RFC in the Field; Lt. Col, Pretyman, commanding a Wing, to add to his congratulations from the Brig. Gen. who had threatened to send him back to flying

school. Unprecedented and exceptional recognition for a new and completely unknown pilot.

Lt X lived up to his early promise. Within a month he had scored 13 victories and was promoted to Captain.

After two months at the Front he had scored 20 victories and had been awarded a Military Cross and a

Distinguished Service Order. By the beginning of his fourth month on active service- including two weeks of

leave - he had been awarded 22½ aerial victories, and won Britain’s highest award for gallantry, the

Victoria Cross.

Reads like 1930s pulp fiction?

Scenario entirely taken from events as described in Courage of the Early Morning by William Arthur Bishop; and Billy

Bishop VC. Lone Wold Hunter by Peter Kilduff. These accounts differ in some details and dates of the

happenings described, as well as the official records of 60 Squadron RFC/RAF.

Sorry about the weird formatting when posted.!

[Loader]

Re: Author input on pictures. I corresponded with Arch Whitehouse, MM of 22 Sqdn some yrs before he died. He told me that the cover of his autobiography THE FLEDGING had a picture of a Vickers gun & a belt of ammo on it. He had never used such a gun in the RFC/RF but the Lewis gun drum fed. He said he protested to the publisher but was told nobody would recognize the Lewis gun so they opted for the Vickers & that was how it was going to be. He argued but to no avail. Maybe the cover illustration is different from the photos in the body of the book & the publisher does have final say on it. But just to show that there can be reasons for photos that do not match the subject matter.

[mickdavis]

Re: Author input on pictures. I corresponded with Arch Whitehouse, MM of 22 Sqdn some yrs before he died. He told me that the cover of his autobiography THE FLEDGING had a picture of a Vickers gun & a belt of ammo on it. He had never used such a gun in the RFC/RF but the Lewis gun drum fed. He said he protested to the publisher but was told nobody would recognize the Lewis gun so they opted for the Vickers & that was how it was going to be. He argued but to no avail. Maybe the cover illustration is different from the photos in the body of the book & the publisher does have final say on it. But just to show that there can be reasons for photos that do not match the subject matter.

In this day and age, if any aviation author is daft enough to trust a publisher to acquire and caption photographs that illustrate a piece of he/she deserves any criticism that follows. I don't think that Peter Kilduff would be so stupid.

[Andrew Upton]

Re: Author input on pictures. I corresponded with Arch Whitehouse, MM of 22 Sqdn some yrs before he died. He told me that the cover of his autobiography THE FLEDGING had a picture of a Vickers gun & a belt of ammo on it. He had never used such a gun in the RFC/RF but the Lewis gun drum fed. He said he protested to the publisher but was told nobody would recognize the Lewis gun so they opted for the Vickers & that was how it was going to be. He argued but to no avail. Maybe the cover illustration is different from the photos in the body of the book & the publisher does have final say on it. But just to show that there can be reasons for photos that do not match the subject matter.

Assuming he meant this version below, to be fair it is at least an aircraft Vickers set up for synchronisation - it could have been much worse really.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTAyNFg2OTA=/z/dRgAAMXQVT9TAV3R/$_35.JPG

[alowe56]

It does work both ways. I'm totally unqualified to write about USAS/USNAS matters, unless they're related to units based in the UK & Ireland or attached to the RAF in France. Unfortunately for your argument, Canadians were flying with the RNAS/RFC/RAF and so people with an interest in such matters have a little more understanding. As far as my experience goes, authors submit photos and captions for their books and so any responsibility for mistakes falls on their heads alone. I'd hate to think that I could confuse, for example, a Standard J.1 for a Curtiss R.2.

You might be surprised. I have a book, called "Images of War: Royal Flying Corps Rare Photographs From Wartime Archives." On page 27, is a picture of a Sopwith 1 and 1/2 strutter. Yet, the text above refers to it as "a trainer version of the Sopwith Camel." Then on page 28, is a picture of a Sopwith Dolphin, and the text below that says, "This is a second photograph of the same aircraft..." Now, considering this book is all about the pictures, I'd really expect to see NO errors like that, at all.

After all, who among us would mistake a Sopwith strutter or Dolphin for a Camel?

[alowe56]

Unfortunately KP's reference to 'general' and 'logs' confirms his lack of knowledge about British record keeping. Pilots kept a Pilots Log Book not a 'general' one. Squadrons kept a Squadron Record Book. His ignorance of British operations is further confirmed by his unqualified acceptance of Bishop's bizarre 1915 claim that he flew from England to France and over the lines and back in the one day while still under training in England and that the RFC was about make more such sorties.

Errol

I don't know that PK, (KP?) necessarily accepts Bishop's claim of flying over the channel in 1915. He mentions it because Bishop wrote about the trip (real or imagined) to his then fiancee, Margaret Burden. Still, I don't see the sense in asking about Bishop's log book for that period. He wasn't a pilot then, and so probably didn't keep a log book, unless someone knows something I don't.

[David Filsell]

Alex,

One's tempted to say,"You couldn't make it up." But ...

[Errol Martyn]

I don't know that PK, (KP?) necessarily accepts Bishop's claim of flying over the channel in 1915. He mentions it because Bishop wrote about the trip (real or imagined) to his then fiancee, Margaret Burden. Still, I don't see the sense in asking about Bishop's log book for that period. He wasn't a pilot then, and so probably didn't keep a log book, unless someone knows something I don't.

Thank you for your comments but they of course don't address the points I raise.

Apologies about the KP instead of PK.

Errol

[mickdavis]

You might be surprised. I have a book, called "Images of War: Royal Flying Corps Rare Photographs From Wartime Archives." On page 27, is a picture of a Sopwith 1 and 1/2 strutter. Yet, the text above refers to it as "a trainer version of the Sopwith Camel." Then on page 28, is a picture of a Sopwith Dolphin, and the text below that says, "This is a second photograph of the same aircraft..." Now, considering this book is all about the pictures, I'd really expect to see NO errors like that, at all.

After all, who among us would mistake a Sopwith strutter or Dolphin for a Camel?

And who was the distinguished author? I may not be in Peter Kilduff's league, I've only written two books and co-authored three, but have also reviewed numerous books where people have the information/photographs but can't make sense of what they have. A classic example was one entitled Richthofen Jagdstaffel Ahead which had numerous rare images that the author himself captioned so poorly that it beggared belief - and yet there were wonderful pics of 61 Sqn Camels and SE5as that hadn't, until then, been published. Captioning is something I take very seriously as editor of the CCI journal and I always try to ensure that they are as accurate and comprehensive as possible. In the centenary of the Great War there will be boatloads of books published and the commissioning editors of most publishers lack the specialist background knowledge. It's up to the author's to make sure that their captions are correct - do you seriously think that respected authors such as Alex Revell, with High In The Empty Blue, Trevor Henshaw, with The Sky Their Battlefield, and Errol Martyn, with his wonderful histories of early aviation in New Zealand, would entrust such things to an amateur? A further mis-caption, in the Bishop book, that I didn't mention previously, is that of the distant shot purporting to show 21 Sqn RE7s, when the machines are patently Martinsyde Elephants (therefore presumably 27 Sqn). I go back to my earlier suggestion that writers of a certain nationality have their own specialisms and, in the case of American authors it tends to be USAS/USN and German aviation. Stray outside your own areas of specialist knowledge and mistakes will happen.

[alex revell]

David,

Yes, exactly. When it's put into perspective - the object of the post - it becomes obvious to those of us who know anything at all about the subject how farcical it is.

[alex revell]

Mick,

I so agree. Every man and his brother without any knowledge of the subject are now writing about it on commission, usually culling everything from previously published books. I've been pretty involved with McCudden for the last year or so, writing a biography. A couple of days ago I was in Waterstones looking at all the general books on our subject, and in three or four looked up what they had to say about McCudden. On the subject of his death, all differed in essential details, one author, who should know better, presenting as facts a sequence of events which are simply not possible for McCudden to have done.

[David Filsell]

I think the fact of the matter is that unless a new trove of information about any of the well known pilots turns up there is little that can be done toturn up anything 'new' of major importance. Certainly this is true about the debate of Bishop. I personally tjhink he was, and has been proved, a wrong 'un, others "know different". The last new key point of 'new' information I can recall was in the Diaries of Ricthofen's mother who described the classic symptoms he was showing of the mental toll that the war was taking on him. It made me look at the similar written evidence of Mannock's late behaviour. When one gets to Bishop there is simply smoke, obfuscation and confusion, some of it I think quite deliberate. I can actually forgive captioning errors - I've made enough of them myself over the years - but I find Kilduff's failure to pass judgement despite the evidence disappointing.

[ICM - RAF Retd]

Dare I say that, as this thread has progressed, I've been relieved that the MOD did not choose Bishop's name as one of the VCs to be commemorated when 10 Squadron's VC10s were named in 1968.

[alex revell]

David,

It's not so much a matter of new data on individual pilots being found, but new information found which enables their records to be reassessed. This is happening all the time by on-going research.