Red Baron

[Geoff Parker]

One for you air war buffs.

I read somewhere in the last 3 or 4 years (possibly in a book review) that

doubts had arisen of the Baron's number of kills. He apparently claimed a certain

number RFC aircraft shot down on a particular day, but after research of the

RFC records there were no listings for aircraft lost on that particular day in that

sector. I understand that in those days it was not necessary to have a witness

when claiming a kill.

So did he falsify his claims and has his official number of kills been reduced

Just curious

Geoff

[Guest Pete Wood]

Geoff, there will always be some doubts as to who shot down who - and what aircraft was being flown.

But I believe the biggest discrepancies came about when, in the late 1920s, Floyd Gibbons attempted to collate all the information about Richthofen's claims.

Gibbons did a less than perfect job with the translation of MvR's reports. Gibbons also failed to appreciate the difference in German and British times (summer and winter). Basically Gibbons tried to fit the evidence, and took many of the German reports too literally. So when, for example, MvR says that the plane he shot down was a single seater, Gibson found a 'scout' as the victim, when it was in fact a two seater that was being flown without an observer.

I believe that the recent work by Norman Franks, Hal Giblin, and Nigel McCrery - Under The Guns Of The Red Baron - has gone as far as anyone can in attributing who did what, where, when, and in what aeroplane. It's a lovely book - and not expensive. On the whole, they found strong evidence to back nearly every one of MvR's claims. There were errors, but many of these were clerical errors. At least that's the view I came to after comparing the views of these and other authors.

Different nationalities imposed different criteria for a 'victory' over another aeroplane. I think it would be fair to say that the French required more evidence than the Germans, who required more evidence than the British.

If you want to see some strong emotions on this (or the aerodrome forum), just mention Billy Bishop's claims.....

[Geoff Parker]

RT

Thanks for the info. Yes I've heard some of the stories about Bishops kills.

Geoff

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Just to add to RTs post, during the Battle of Britain the Duxford Wing claimed 30 kills in a single sortie on 18 September 1940. Analysis of crash sites and ground witness reports showed they only shot down 4 bombers.

During combat most pilots would be in a highly emotional state and I doubt that their powers of recall are that accurate after the fact. I am sure that there were those pilots who deliberately exaggerated their claims but I believe on the whole most were just inadvertantly overstated.

Ian

[Geoff Parker]

Ian

I realise that the claims of destroyed aircraft during the B of B far exceeded

the actual number brought down. September 13th or 15th (cant remember)

is a classic example. The skies over England in 1940 would have been far more

crowded than over France during the Great War though.

Geoff

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Geoff,

Agree but I am sure the adrenalin rush for the pilots was the same. Plus the closing speed for aircraft in WW1 was probably 240mph, in WW2 it could be 700mph so the sky could get empty quite quickly - something many BoB & WW2 pilots spoke about. So fullone minute empty the next, unlike WW1 where you had more of the classic 'dogfight' scenarios perhaps.

Regards - Ian

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Geoff,

Interestingly Group Captain Stanley Vincent who flew over the Western Front and in 1940 was the Station Commander at North Weald and flew several 'tactics observation' sorties wrote an interesting book which included comparisons of air combat in WW1 & WW2. I have a copy at home and will fish it out.

Ian

[Terry]

Hi all,

At one time I took quite an active part in www.theaerodrome.com website, and the question of scores often popped up. The British system was by far the most lax, with "out of controls", "driven downs", and so on, while the French and Germans were much more accurate.

The most annoying feature on the site was the belief in the 100% infallibility of the German record system. There were contributors who were sure that if a particular victory by an RFC/RNAS/RAF flyer on a particular date was not in the German records, it didn't happen. A few members seemed to feel that every British (and Empire) pilot was a liar, padding his own score. The German method of actually calculating their own losses was in fact very flexible. For example if an aircraft could be repaired it wasn't considered a battle casualty.

Having said that, the RFC scoring system was pretty casual. For example, a pilot could have actually destroyed two enemy planes, shared in the destruction of one more with two other pilots, and driven down a couple of others out of control, and by the scoring system used in the Franks book, be credited with five victories. By WW2 standards, the pilot would have been credited with 2.33 victories.

Much of the debate centred around just what was a victory. Was it a heap of flaming wreckage on a hillside or could it be an enemy aircraft driven from the scene damaged and unable to carry out its mission?

[BlackSeptember1918]

The quetion of scores is always a controversial subject . I think it's fair to say that the British claimed many more victory's than it actually scored . The main reason to me is that the Command cared little for personal scores and much more about the service performing it's allotted tasks . It's probably fair to say also that the British scores aren't so much an official thing , but lists taken from Communiques . In the end it is only us armchair historians that place such importance on them . The names of the Corps pilots are generally forgotten , even though they were performing the task the air service was formed for .

Even the greatest scorers couldn't match the toll of an infantry machinegunner in a few hours of a failed ground offensive .

I wouldn't be surprised if the British scores were never really taken seriously by the command , but served as a good moral booster for aircrew fighting in enemy airspace taking high casualties . There is many reasons why the German confirmed scores are higher than the British ones , but both forces were every bit as brave and skillful as one another , just that they were fighting different battles . Similar to trying to compare the Eastern Front scores and the Western Front scores by the Luftwaffe in WWII .

Phil.