Peter Beckett Posted 28 October , 2003 Share Posted 28 October , 2003 Now that we have a dedicated "brylcreem" section, who really brought down the Baron. I have read various books and am still no wiser. I throw the subject open. Peter ps Thanks, Chris, for another valuable asset to the Forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted 28 October , 2003 Share Posted 28 October , 2003 Had a few debates about this on the aerodrome forum a few years ago. For what it's worth I still think from the evidence available that the machine gunner Popkin was the one who fired the fatal shot. I guess that at the time the propoganda value was better for having a pilot shoot down MvR, rather than a soldier on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killratio Posted 28 October , 2003 Share Posted 28 October , 2003 Hi Andrew, We still haven't caught up for that guiness at Rosie's. My take, Popkin. Of course the "latest" has him shot on the ground by Aussie artillerymen. An idea which originally came from that (insert favourite name for wierdo here) lady who insisted a few years ago that she was the Baron reincarnate! Norman Franks et al seem to have the eyes of the subject picked out with their book. I lean towards it as it makes a more logical case than most. regards Darryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 28 October , 2003 Share Posted 28 October , 2003 Peter, Take a look at Dr. M. Geoffrey Miller's article 'The Death of Manfred von Richthofen. Who fired the fatal shot?' It contains details of a post-mortem examination, eyewitness accounts, maps, and the cases of the various claims http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/comment/richt.htm Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Smith Posted 28 October , 2003 Share Posted 28 October , 2003 G'day Darryl & Andrew, You meet the finest people in the least expected places! I am in the Popkin camp as well. Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 28 October , 2003 Share Posted 28 October , 2003 There was an interesting documentary on the 'UK History' channel not so long ago, which 'proved' the Aussie machine gunner Popkin fired the fatal shot. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 29 October , 2003 Share Posted 29 October , 2003 So, it wasn't Snoopy after all, then ? I'm disappointed. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted 29 October , 2003 Share Posted 29 October , 2003 Hi Andrew, We still haven't caught up for that guiness at Rosie's. My take, Popkin. Of course the "latest" has him shot on the ground by Aussie artillerymen. An idea which originally came from that (insert favourite name for wierdo here) lady who insisted a few years ago that she was the Baron reincarnate! Norman Franks et al seem to have the eyes of the subject picked out with their book. I lean towards it as it makes a more logical case than most. regards Darryl Hi Darryl Glad to see you and Andrew here. Give me a yell next time your up this way and we will definately have to have that Guinness. Geoffrey Miller certainly seems to be an expert on this MvR subject. Cheers Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Beckett Posted 29 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 29 October , 2003 Michael, thanks for the link to Dr. M. Geoffrey Miller's article. Well worth reading. I must admit now to be veering to the Popkin theory. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 29 October , 2003 Share Posted 29 October , 2003 The crucial line in the good Doctor's theory, and in the Grub Street book - The Red Baron's Last Flight (Norman Franks and Alan Bennett), is this: "According to Sinclair, therefore, assuming that von Richthofen was sitting straight in his cockpit and the aeroplane was in level flight, the bullet must have struck him from the right side, was fired from an angle that was slightly in front of the body and was fired from below." If the plane wasn't level, but banking, climbing, turning, descending, etc etc - the bullet could have been fired from the ground OR the air. That said, I do side with the Popkin camp. All these investigations have, though, put some myths to bed once and for all. The Baron's seat, from his aeroplane, is on display in Canada. For years, many people said that the holes in this seat were bullet holes, and that MvR died from these wounds (obviously fired from behind - and therefore supporting 209 Sqn, Roy Brown's claim). The holes turned out to be where the rivets, which secured the seat to the aeroplane frame, had once been located........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank_East Posted 29 October , 2003 Share Posted 29 October , 2003 According to "Who killed the Red Baron"by P.J.Carisella,Gunner Cedric Bassett Popkin and Gunner Rupert F.Weston of the 24th Machine Gun Company,4th Australian Division brought down Richthofen when he presented an opportunity target to ground personnel.Other accounts have only mentioned Gunner Popkin. Richthofen anxious to record his 81st kill abandoned his strict rules for engagement and for the first time in his career strayed over the Allied lines pursuing what appeared an easy kill to tree top height from a point where at height he was observing a dog fight taking place.His established tactic was to observe a massed dog fight from above and pounce on any convenient breakaway straggler seeking safety from the fight.His intended victim was Lieutenant W.R. May of No 209 Squadron,a pilot with little combat experience who experienced a jam on both machine guns,decided to break away and head for home away from the dog fight without cover.Lucky for May,his Flight Commander Captain A.R Brown saw the Red Baron on the tail of May's Camel and intervened.The Red Baron took his time to line up the perfect shot at the optimum range as May tried to evade.Brown on the Red Baron's tail unseen, fired a burst of machine gun fire and thought he saw the Red Baron slump in the cockpit.Without control,the Fokker crashed about two miles inside the British lines and the pilot who was found dead was later indentified as the Red Baron.Brown and No 209 Squadron were given credit for the kill but subsequent research has proved that death came from the ground. Richthofen lost his life because he failed to adhere to his own "Air Combat Operations Manual", part of which reads "One should never obstinately stay with an opponent which ...." Richthofen was obstinate, he had a reputation to upkeep in the new league of air bravery recognised as the Air Ace league.It cost him his life but his reputation remains. Regards Frank East Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 29 October , 2003 Share Posted 29 October , 2003 Brown and No 209 Squadron were given credit for the kill but subsequent research has proved that death came from the ground. Without 'splitting hairs,' I think it would be much fairer to say that there is a strong possibility that MvR was shot from the ground. No one can be positive and say who fired the bullet. All we can be sure of is that it was a 'British' bullet - and that the chances of it being fired by Brown (who fired at maximum range) are slight - and that there is a 'good' chance that Popkin (and maybe Weston) should have received the credit. Nothing has been "proved" as far as I am aware. I do agree with you, though, that this flight appears to have contradicted MvR's normal practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSeptember1918 Posted 31 October , 2003 Share Posted 31 October , 2003 It's been ages since I read " The Red Baron's Last Flight " , but I have a huge respect for Norman Franks . I think he researches as well as anyone , so I guess I'm saying that I perscribe to the Popkin theory . One does wonder if it was just some bloke letting off a few rounds as fast as he could without aiming though ? . Perhaps an Aussie soldier that has never been mentioned . For sure Popkin was trained in aerial gunnery . But you end up just as dead if hit by a wild shot as any . The mystery and debate over this will go on for ever I expect . Oh and this looks like a great forum , the other parts as well as the aviation section . Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 31 October , 2003 Share Posted 31 October , 2003 It's nice to see you over here Phil. I'm still waiting for that bar of gold..... If you've finished making that 'bit' of aeroplane, why not post a few pics of it..?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSeptember1918 Posted 31 October , 2003 Share Posted 31 October , 2003 G'day RT It is nice to see you again ...I was thinking that perhaps you had been sailing on that cruise ship you were selling your teapots to ! . Thanks for the heads up about this forum mate ...Ahh the DrI rudder ...well all the components for the frame are pretty much made . But the wife has me building 3 new rooms on the back of our house for the moment , so time for playing just dosen't seem to be around . Hopefully as soon as I get it to lockup stage she will give me a leave pass to get back to the rudder . I'll post some pics as soon as it's completed mate . At this rate if I was building them for Fokker , he would have been able to send 1 aircraft to the front in 4 years !!..heh heh .... You still haven't got the gold bar huh ??...strange?? ......~grin~. Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted 1 November , 2003 Share Posted 1 November , 2003 Whoever did the deed, Wop May survived to fly another day, tally thirteen victories, win a DFC, and go on to a distinguished career in civil aviation in Canada, receiving a civil OBE in 1935 for his services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSeptember1918 Posted 1 November , 2003 Share Posted 1 November , 2003 A good point about May , Terry . It may also apply to many other R.A.F. crewmen who didn't become MvR's next victims . It's said that MvR was due to be rested by orders around the time of his death . But one can't see him sitting on his hands when defeat loomed for his country , and what he would have been able to do with a DVII makes interesting thinking . Although the red DrI is the symbol for many of MvR , the extra speed and characteristics of the DVII seem to fit perfectly with Manfred's hunting mind and tactics . On the other hand we all are aware that one of the most dangerous times for a flyer was getting back into the groove after a rest , so MvR may possibly have been defeated in the air on his return ? ..Which is a much more fitting way for him to go . All speculation ...but interesting none the less I think . Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StephenLawson Posted 1 November , 2003 Share Posted 1 November , 2003 21.4.18 He was shot while attempting to climb out of his crashed Triplane. No shame or disgrace involved here simply a ground soldier sharpshooting an enemy pilot. There is no bullet hole in the back of the seat from 425/17. The laws of physics cannot be altered. Therefore he was not seated in the cockpit. Despite 'eyewitness accounts' and the preconceived ideas of many current film producers, If not seated in the cockpit and not out of the machine he was shot while trying to exit the crash. An infrantryman either prone or kneeling could match the angle described in the autopsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 4 November , 2003 Share Posted 4 November , 2003 21.4.18 He was shot while attempting to climb out of his crashed Triplane. There's only one thing standing in the way of your theory: evidence. No account, that I have ever seen/heard/read backs up this scenario. If a soldier had shot MvR, at close range, as you are suggesting, that means MvR was not wounded when he landed. If not wounded, why did he land....?? I'm sure that what you wrote was said tongue in cheek, but those who believe all that is written might not understand the humour Still, it is good fun to speculate..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will O'Brien Posted 4 November , 2003 Share Posted 4 November , 2003 21.4.18 He was shot while attempting to climb out of his crashed Triplane. There's only one thing standing in the way of your theory: evidence. No account, that I have ever seen/heard/read backs up this scenario. If a soldier had shot MvR, at close range, as you are suggesting, that means MvR was not wounded when he landed. If not wounded, why did he land....?? I'm sure that what you wrote was said tongue in cheek, but those who believe all that is written might not understand the humour Still, it is good fun to speculate..... Teapots- Whilst i'm not suggesting for one minute that this suggestion/theory is true (I too have never heard it ever mentioned before), I have heard that MvR's plane landed almost perfectly rather than crashing & based on his wounds he should have been dead before the plane touched down. A dead man making a perfect landing or a sheer fluke that an out of control plane landing as smoothly as if someone was at the controls? One is the stuff of myth or make believe, the other highly improbable i would have thought. Or perhaps there is another answer, I simply don't know. Food for thought anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Smith Posted 4 November , 2003 Share Posted 4 November , 2003 G'day Will, MvR's tripe landing with a dead man at the controls would not be a first. An RE8 of 3 Squadron Australian Flying Corps, did that very thing. On December 17, 1917, Lt. Sandy (pilot) and Sgt Hughes (observer) were killed by a single bullet during flying combat. Their RE8 flew until it ran out of fuel then glide-landed 50 miles away with little damage. Some accounts suggest MvR was barely alive on landing and spoke a few words in German before succumbing to his wounds. Men who ran to the crash site all agree on one thing, that MvR was in his cockpit. I doubt whoever the "sniper" was that bagged MvR placed the body back in the cockpit. As for a mass conspiracy of covering the incident up, I doubt that very much, I really do not think that you could ask that many Aussie's to stick to the story. As for speculation of exit and entry wounds, and suggestions of bullet holes in seats that should be there, and how that does not equate to the laws of physics, well I won't comment as I am not a student of this branch of science. What I will ask Stephen though as I know he has researched this subject thoroughly, if MvR was leaning forward trying to clear a jammed machine gun, is it possible for the bullet to pass through MvR without making contact with his seat?? Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will O'Brien Posted 4 November , 2003 Share Posted 4 November , 2003 Andrew MvR's tripe landing with a dead man at the controls would not be a first. An RE8 of 3 Squadron Australian Flying Corps, did that very thing. On December 17, 1917, Lt. Sandy (pilot) and Sgt Hughes (observer) were killed by a single bullet during flying combat. Their RE8 flew until it ran out of fuel then glide-landed 50 miles away with little damage. I quite agree not impossible given the right circumstances & although MvR landing was somewhat different (ie the plane didn't glide for 50 miles before landing) I would give this more credence than him being gunned downed whilst trying to climb out of his cockpit. Some accounts suggest MvR was barely alive on landing and spoke a few words in German before succumbing to his wounds. Men who ran to the crash site all agree on one thing, that MvR was in his cockpit. This is one of the problems with the MvR story. So many accounts, all slightly different. I was being honest when I said I simply didn't know the answer. As for a mass conspiracy of covering the incident up, I doubt that very much, I really do not think that you could ask that many Aussie's to stick to the story. I wasn't suggesting that there was a conspiracy. Far from it. My point (badly made) was that nothing is clear & nothing is beyond the realms of possibility (even that Capt Brown did shoot him down - although I agree thats stretching it just a bit too far ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Smith Posted 5 November , 2003 Share Posted 5 November , 2003 G'day Will, I wasn't suggesting that there was a conspiracy. Far from it. My point (badly made) was that nothing is clear & nothing is beyond the realms of possibility (even that Capt Brown did shoot him down - although I agree thats stretching it just a bit too far That was my error, I was answering in part to Stephens MvR shot on the ground theory. I have studied many of the documents held at the Australian War Memorial and not in one of them does it even hint at him landing climbing out of the cockpit and then be shot. That story would have got out as MvR's aircraft was recognised in the areas it flew. IMHO, I think that MvR was brought down by Popkin, while MvR was in the air of course. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSeptember1918 Posted 5 November , 2003 Share Posted 5 November , 2003 Make no mistake guy's, Stephen is very serious about his theory . He believes thats the way it happened . While I have the greatest respect for Stephen's knowledge , I don't personally agree with his theory on this one . While Aussie soldiers in WWI weren't all that good at taking prisoners , I don't think an Aussie would have hid the fact he gunned down MvR in cold blood on the ground , infact I think he would have told everyone he could have . Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 5 November , 2003 Share Posted 5 November , 2003 Make no mistake guy's, Stephen is very serious about his theory . He believes thats the way it happened . Thanks for that, Phil. I apologise for taking Stephen's post in the wrong manner. Sorry, Stephen. I know I'll be swatting up on a couple of books tonight!! I do agree with you, Phil, that the chances of a 'sniper' keeping quiet would have been difficult. I'll have a look at some of Stephen's posts on The Aerodrome to see what he has to say on that subject. It's the velocity of the bullet that also has me questioning Stephen's theory on this, if it was fired from the ground - and at close range....?? 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