Downed RFC flyers with Oblt Loerzer: who were They?

[Kimberley John Lindsay]

Dear Peter,

I am impressed!

Kindest regards,

Kim.

[Buffnut453]

6 hours ago, PRC said:

There was prejudice in the whole of society recorded by those who experienced it and I believe even more so in some officers mess where it was very, very unlikely to be officially documented. However in this case it was a strawman to try and potentially understand why Wellby might have been partnered with an Airman when I still hadn't resolved whether he was Jewish or not - I tend to write as I research so that others can follow my line of thought.

Of course not every flight will have been likely with the same two crew members for the reasons you have stated, but from the few individuals I've had chance to be able to follow all the way through to their final flight, there were definate recurring preferences.

And by forced all I mean was that if Wellby had been ostracised by the Officers mess, and the Flight Commander and Squadron C.O. went along with it, then he would have had to look outside that group to fill the second seat in the plane.

So Wellby and Nicol could have been a preferred partnership or a one-off for the patrol in which they were shot down - we will almost certainly never know. And by the looks of this blog-post about an airman gunner of 22 Squadron it may have been seen there as a modus operandi with great merit. https://davidlearmount.com/tag/no-22-squadron/

I may also have inferred too much by looking too quickly at 22 Squadron losses from the period which seemed to all be officer \ officer crews - perhaps proof that wasn't the best combination rather than reflecting that it was the operational norm in the Squadron.

Back to the search for Wellby and Nicol

Cheers,
Peter

Hi Peter,

'm not disagreeing that there was prejudice.  However, ostracising an individual in a squadron is operationally dangerous where you're relying on your wing man to cover you.  A great many Brisfit sorties were formations and you have to be able to trust all the members of your formation.  That won't happen if you're deliberately excluding an individual from the team group.  Also, Wellby wouldn't "look outside his group" for an Observer.  He'd be assigned is crewman for the sortie.  

All that said, thank you for explaining your thinking and your approach of "write as I research."  We're all just trying to work out the story behind this fascinating photograph...and it's been a great collaborative effort by all.  Personally, I'm enjoying being able to actually share information to help with a question instead of being the person asking the questions.  

Cheers,
Mark

[pierssc]

For all we know Nichol might have been one of the most reliable Observers in the Squadron - and the fact that he WAS an Observer rather than just an aerial gunner (the Observer's wing being gained only through hard experience - and survival) suggests that he might have been a darn good man to have in the back seat.  He looks a pretty self-assured chap, don't you think?

According to TSTB II Wellby's aircraft was at the rear of a patrol of 5 when it was attacked - the most dangerous spot.  Assuming that was his proper position in the formation I would have thought that might be a good reason to have a particularly reliable man watching the formation's tail.

Of course while we're talking possible prejudice it might cross one's mind that (assuming that there was at least one Officer Observer in the flight of similar competence) it's funny how the 2AM Observer ended up in that spot.... but you'd really need to look at the make-up of the whole formation and the relative experience of all the crew members (an experienced man being often paired with a novice) if you wanted to make out a case.  Wellby had been with the Squadron two months.  He wasn't a complete beginner.

 

[Glenn J]

On 16/08/2023 at 15:42, PRC said:

I’ve not come across a physical description of Bruno Loezer, but heightwise seems comparable to the RFC airman on his left. If that is William Nicol, then RFC record shows William was 5 feet 7 and a half inches tall.

 

Bruno Loerzer was reported as an height of 1.78 metres in a certificate furnished to the inspectorate of flying troops in 1919.

The award document for his Hohenzollern House Order Knight's Cross with Swords was dated 19 December 1917 and was gazetted in Staatsanzeiger the following day (20 December 1917). It was further announced in the Militär-Wochenblatt as Charlie states above, in the edition of 28 December 1917.

Regards

Glenn

Edited 18 August , 2023 by Glenn J

[PRC]

1 hour ago, Glenn J said:

Bruno Loerzer was reported as an height of 1.78 metres in a certificate furnished to the inspectorate of flying troops in 1919.

Which is roughly 5 feet 8 inches so well within the possibility that the two men, allowing for footwear, variance in the way the height was measured and the passage of time in the case of Nichol - although you'd expect him to be fully grown by 1915 when presumably that height was measured ! - were more or less the same height with Loerzer slightly edging it

It's unlikely Loerzer had shrunk in the intervening period - if indeed, as seems likely, it is him in the picture.

So circumstantial evidence but keeps Loerzer and Nichol, and by extension Wellby, in the running as the three individuals pictured here.

Thanks,
Peter

[robbie56]

Is that a marriage or engagement ring on the chap on the right of the photograph ? Could be down to the photograph but coincidental there’s something on that finger.

[PRC]

21 minutes ago, robbie56 said:

Is that a marriage or engagement ring on the chap on the right of the photograph ? Could be down to the photograph but coincidental there’s something on that finger.

It's the right finger but seems exceptionally dark to be the most common metals used in such jewelley. I did think for a moment of the kind of taping up that is done for sportsmen wearing hard to remove jewellery items, but I'm not sure there would have been a material available then that would have done such a neat job.

So for now coming down on the side of a blemish on the photograph. There is nothing on his airmans record or entry in the Morayshire Roll of Honour to indicate William Nicol was married at any point during the period he was serving.

All image rights remain with the current owner.

Cheers,
Peter

 

Edited 18 August , 2023 by PRC
Typo

[charlie2]

On 17/08/2023 at 09:25, PRC said:

Thanks again Every day a school day on the forum!

Just wondering - could the same source also reveal when in late 1917 he was awarded the Iron Cross (First Class)?
Or would those details have been held \ published elsewhere?

Cheers,
Peter

Peter

Sorry for the late reply I was travelling to the UK yesterday. The search in the MWB on Ancestry only brings up the 1915 EKII and the 1917 Hohenzollern order, all the other entries are for 1918 and do not relate to his decorations. 

Charlie

[pierssc]

2 hours ago, PRC said:

 

So for now coming down on the side of a blemish on the photograph. There is nothing on his airmans record or entry in the Morayshire Roll of Honour to indicate William Nicol was married at any point during the period he was serving.

 

I wondered if it might be a finger protector for an injured or infected finger.  We're seeing the adjustable strap holding it on.  His ring and little fingers being curled into his palm.  I'm not convinced - it could easily be just a blemish on the print.

[robbie56]

Could have lost the tip of his finger ?

[Glenn J]

On 17/08/2023 at 09:25, PRC said:

Just wondering - could the same source also reveal when in late 1917 he was awarded the Iron Cross (First Class)?
Or would those details have been held \ published elsewhere?

Peter,

he was awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class much earlier. An extract from his service record (Kriegsranglisten-Auszug) records the award dates as  23 March 1915. He was awarded the Baden Order of the Zähringer Lion Knight's Cross with Swords on 27 April 1915.

Regards

Glenn

 

[Buffnut453]

Here are some additional images of Bruno Loerzer I found online:

(Source: http://airaces.narod.ru/ww1/german/loerzer.htm)

 

 

 

Recognize they're not all great quality but it seems pretty certain, to me at least, that the person in the original post is Bruno Loerzer.  

[PRC]

48 minutes ago, Glenn J said:

Peter,

he was awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class much earlier. An extract from his service record (Kriegsranglisten-Auszug) records the award dates as  23 March 1915. He was awarded the Baden Order of the Zähringer Lion Knight's Cross with Swords on 27 April 1915.

All,

I have to admit when it comes to German fliers I am well and truely out of my depth.

We have a statement for Bruno Loerzer being awarded in the Great War era the Iron Cross (2nd Class) on the 7th March 1915, with an Iron Class (1st Class) in late 1917, a Knights Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords, late 1917, a Pour le Merite 12th February 1918, a Knights Cross Second Class of the Order of the Zahinger Lion with Swords, date unknown. Admittedly the statement is on Wikipedia and it doesn't lists sources for that information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Loerzer

However there are various books that cite some or all of that information and it is likely that some of them predate the creation of the Wikipedia article.

Now we have the information from his service record which is at odds with that.

So either we accept the picture isn't of Loerzer, as those awards from his service record predates his first confirmed kill in March 1916.

Or a question for those more knowledgeable than I in this area - could the style of jacket worn in the picture sometimes \ always be worn without medal ribbons or medals.. I'm assuming the rank shown is compatible with his rank at the time, and it isn't the jacket of a colleague picked up to allow the photograph to be taken.

I'll re attach the comparison picture I posted earlier in the hope that it helps.

5 hours ago, charlie2 said:

The search in the MWB on Ancestry only brings up the 1915 EKII and the 1917 Hohenzollern order, all the other entries are for 1918 and do not relate to his decorations. 

Thanks for checking - hope the journey went well,

Cheers,
Peter

[fetubi]

On 18/08/2023 at 06:21, pierssc said:

For all we know Nichol might have been one of the most reliable Observers in the Squadron - and the fact that he WAS an Observer rather than just an aerial gunner (the Observer's wing being gained only through hard experience - and survival) suggests that he might have been a darn good man to have in the back seat.  He looks a pretty self-assured chap, don't you think?

According to TSTB II Wellby's aircraft was at the rear of a patrol of 5 when it was attacked - the most dangerous spot.  Assuming that was his proper position in the formation I would have thought that might be a good reason to have a particularly reliable man watching the formation's tail.

Of course while we're talking possible prejudice it might cross one's mind that (assuming that there was at least one Officer Observer in the flight of similar competence) it's funny how the 2AM Observer ended up in that spot.... but you'd really need to look at the make-up of the whole formation and the relative experience of all the crew members (an experienced man being often paired with a novice) if you wanted to make out a case.  Wellby had been with the Squadron two months.  He wasn't a complete beginner.

 

Thank you for your earlier kind comments about my Book. I could never have done it without so much help from friends. It's great to see it helping to tell the Lads' stories. That is its whole point. Cheers, from Trevor