Billy Bishop controversy.

Oh, unless, of course it was meant that with no pilot in the cockpit and the engine running, prop blast under the tail would lift it
Mike

I don’t understand the comment that without the pilot in it the Nieuport would tip over on its nose. If that were the case a squadron would represent an interesting site before the pilots climbed aboard with all the a/c standing on their noses.
Mike

Has anything actually been proven, disproven … or is likely to be, either way? I suggest not after this length of time.

No some of his kills were witnessed and/or verifiable by comparing with Losses etc.
The number of verifiable kills varies depending on which author/historian you read !
As Wizard posted – the latest book says 21 can be verified but other sources would say between 2 and 12 verifiable kills.
The VC award was really odd and this alone has not done Bishop any favours!

The author of the book (I have not read it), Billy Bishop VC Lone Wolf Hunter: The RAF Ace Re-Examined…believes he can account for 21 kills from the remaining german loss records, and if I recall reading in someones review of same book, around 36 or so tentatively.
Why the VC was awarded I cannot say (the VC standard is 3 eyewitnesses), but nevertheless it was recommended and awarded in spite of the base standards. But that doesn’t mean the aerodrome combat didn’t happen. To me, there is just as much circumstantial evidence for as against.

I have read a lot of Christopher Shores Mediterannean Air War series. And it has daily breakdown of claims vs losses. What I have noticed is that, on average, it seems like actual losses average about 40-50% of kills (regardless of side). Can every one of BB’s kills be accounted for or be accurate? Of course not. But neither will any other pilot’s kill record stand up to close scrutiny IMO. And in all fairness to BB , the Commonwealth had the weakest standards of kill accreditation, so it is not correct to point the finger at just BB.

Abstracted from Wikipedia:
-Up until May, 1918 “out of control”, “driven down” and “forced to land” actions were counted as victories.
-Unlike other air forces of the time, British authorities did not necessarily require independent ground verification of a victory to award credit
-In cases where more than one pilot (or observer) was involved in a British victory, practice was especially inconsistent. Since after all only one enemy aircraft had been destroyed, the victory at unit level (to the squadron or wing for instance) was counted as one. On the other hand, in some cases all pilots concerned might receive a full credit to his personal score, as victories at this time were not divided fractionally, in the way that became common practice later

edit: The 36 notation above is incorrect, the new book says there are 36 claims for which relevant German documentation just simply does not exist, so 36 cannot be corraborated nor denied.

More here-

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo3/no3/doc/55-60-eng.pdf

Interesting, but surely not every one of his combat claims was unwitnessed?

Not wishing to ‘Bash the Bishop’ but the trouble with most of his claims was the complete lack of corroboration for the majority of his ‘Kills’,although he was officially ‘awarded’ them – they do not add up against enemy losses (and that includes the ‘VC’ raid !).
I have no axe to grind here and am usually very much on the side of operational Aircrew- but reading the article by Alex Revell is a reasonable starting point,not sure about the Lewis Gun story – I guess one would have to see a photo of the damage to take an educated guess – and I doubt any photo ever existed !

By Alex Revell

Although I made only a cursory reading of the comments by the champions of Billy Bishop on the site dedicated to him, I was appalled by their ignorance of their – presumably – chosen subject: WW1 aviation. I was even more appalled to find that from this position of ignorance the champions of Bishop have been so crass as to denigrate dedicated researchers who have been actively engaged in WW1 aviation research for over forty years. Has it ever occurred to them to question what possible motive the so-called detractors could have in putting forward the results of their research. They have no personal axe to grind and they certainly have no personal animosity towards Bishop himself. To those of us who have been researching since the early 1960s the doubts about the validity of Bishop’s claims have been an open secret for many years, especially those of us who were fortunate enough to meet and become friends with ex RFC/RAF pilots from the period. Their views on Bishop – which in those I met varied from amused tolerance to outright contempt – were backed up by researchers in the field. If two of these researchers had not been so disgracefully attacked in the Canadian Senate, after their confidential views had been abused by the makers of the film – an attack which meant that they had to defend themselves by presenting the evidence – the secret would still be kept. No one, throughout the years, had any wish to give offence to the members of Bishop’s family still alive.

The other person so disgracefully attacked by a member of the senate was a distinguished pilot, who had served in France with the infantry in1914, had survived the retreat from Mons, transferred to the RFC and had flown throughout the war, mainly at the Front, with very little time in Home Establishment.

A particularly odious senator had the audacity, with no knowledge of this pilot’s service record, to accuse him of cowardice because he had declined to accompany Bishop on the morning of June 2 1917. When informed of the pilot’s service record he did not even have the decency to apologise.

However, leaving aside all the minutiae of the argument, the basic points in dispute are these.

1. The raid on the German aerodrome on the morning of June 2 1917 for which Bishop was awarded the Victoria Cross.

2. Bishop’s victory claims.

Starting in 1978 the late Philip Markham began an investigation into the aerodrome raid. Markham was a retired RAF Engineering Officer, a scholarly Canadian researcher with a world-wide reputation for thoroughness and fairness. In a subsequent article published in Over The Front (Fall 1995 issue) he stated ‘ This research was started out of personal curiosity, and in the hope that I might find confirmation of the claims made by Capt. William Avery Bishop concerning an action on 2 June 1917 for which he was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross. I understood that this was the only occasion on which a VC was awarded solely on the testimony of the recipient The evidence which came to light over a period of 15 years was not what I had expected. History seldom contains detailed accounts of policy or incidents unpalatable in terms of national pride. Legend is preferred to truth, which seldom affects entrenched ideas.’ Later in the article Markham recounts that in one of his early letters to an ex RFC pilot he stated. ‘ My research is primarily out of personal curiosity, but I would dearly love to remove any doubts about Bishop’s integrity’

The article is very scholarly, technical, and concerned only with facts, and is too long to detail here, but I would urge people to obtain a copy and read it for themselves. Markham summed up: ‘My attempt to confirm Bishop’s claim to have attacked an enemy aerodrome and to have destroyed three enemy aircraft on 2 June 1917 has been altogether unsuccessful. I have been unable to discover any supporting evidence; in fact it has been quite the reverse. The point has come when the facts have to be faced, when the opinion of his comrades and contemporaries that Bishop was a fake and when the comment in the Nachrichtenblatt der Lusftstreitkrafte, which describes the aerodrome attack as fictitious, must be taken seriously, and weighed against the character of the man . I have spent a number of years in a thorough investigation of this award and believe I have covered all available aspects. The evidence, from both British and German sources, shows that there were no aircraft losses in the Jastas of 2 or 6 Armee on 2 June 1917, and indicates very clearly that the aerodrome attack never took place. There is not a shred of evidence to support Bishop’s claims.’

Markham then addresses the question of the VC having been awarded on the basis of ‘personal evidence alone’. ‘The answer lies in Rule 12 of the Royal Warrant, which defines the action required if “a claim, though thoroughly well founded, may not have been immediately established on the spot”. This paragraph was evidently included to protect the Monarch should the claim fail to be established, and implies that “the joint submission of Our Secretary of State for War and Our Commander in Chief of Our Army,” could only have been an endorsement in the expectation that “conclusive proof of the performance of the act of bravery “ would be forthcoming.
In Bishop’s case, apparently the only one of its kind, the joint submission was evidently the point of no return for the recommendation, because at this juncture unofficial knowledge of the recommendation must have been fairly widespread. Withdrawal would have been an unacceptable political embarrassment to the British and Canadian governments.’

I would strongly urge that all people interested in getting to the truth of this question read this extremely fair, unbiased and scholarly article by the greatly missed Markham..

Bishop’s victory claims.

The late Ed Ferko was an American who had studied the records of the Luftstreitkrafte for nearly fifty years. His knowledge of the of the arm was unparalleled, equalled only by the British researcher in the same field, Alex Imrie. Ferko carried out an evaluation of Bishop’s victory claims using the Verlustliste der Deutschen Luftstreitkrafte., the records of Kofl 2, Kofl 4 and Kofl 6 and the unit histories of the German Jasta operating in the same area of the Front as 60 and 85 Squadrons at the time in question. At the conclusion of his researches Ferko commented. ‘ It is not a pretty picture. I have checked every possible German book, letter or record in my hands, looking for information either pro or con – nothing has been withheld which might confirm or deny any of Bishop’s victories. I have failed to match a single victory claim made by Bishop against a known German loss for the day, time and place in question’.

I hope this will be of interest to the visitors to the site and will clear up a few misunderstandings. No one wants to destroy a legend, or denigrate a national hero – Bishop was a boyhood hero of us all. Research is undertaken purely in the pursuit of truth. Otherwise the study of history becomes a farce.

Has anything actually been proven, disproven … or is likely to be, either way? I suggest not after this length of time.

All conjecture, and though interesting, without anything new it’s ultimately a bit pointless.

Has anything actually been proven, disproven … or is likely to be, either way? I suggest not after this length of time.

Perhaps he used the weight of the machine gun to counterbalance the A/C whilst (as has been suggested) he got out and shot it full of holes with a side arm? whatever the actual chain of events, the award of a VC was not in keeping with the ethos “for valour”

He could have used a hand gun to make bullet damage….

From memory Capt William Fry had some interesting opinions regarding the veracity of Bishop’s claims, made after Bishop’s death, but I can’t find the reference now.

These engine/prop combinations produce a huge amount of thrust and without wheel chocks…

I was forgetting the lack of brakes, but, having said that, the pilots at Old Warden seem pretty adept at taxiing their First World War aircraft about, including stopping (I’m sure), without always needing ground-crew to hold them back…

…of course it will depend on the aircraft type and (most importantly?) the ground conditions; Old Warden always seems to be pretty soggy underfoot, and the grass is deliberately grown long alongside the runways…

…it’s not exactly flat either!

Why do some people want to have a bash at Billy Bishop?

Don’t “Bash the Bishop” eh? :highly_amused: But seriously, I think nearly all of us here grew up seeing him as a real hero and want to believe it all, but there are also unanswered questions. Why was the VC awarded for a wholly uncorroborated action, in direct contravention of the rules; was it to boost morale in the RFC and honour the incredible contribution being made by Canada? Even if he could have removed his Lewis gun in flight, would he have deliberately chosen to literally throw away his only means of defending himself? Why were the bullet holes in such a small area if they were fired at a distance?

Why do some people want to have a bash at Billy Bishop?

Richard, not all rotaries are the same. The 110 lerhone 9J used in the N17 is throttleable and does idle but that’s not the challenge. These engine/prop combinations produce a huge amount of thrust and without wheel chocks a 110 lerhone powered aircraft requires at least 2 people to hold it steady at idle. Personal experience here. I’ve discussed this with rotary engine pilots and never met one who thought they could start up, run around the wing and get in the cockpit with the engine still running or not having the aircraft run away on them.

Regards
John

Surely if the aircraft was going to nose over when the pilot got out, it would nose over whether it was running or not.

Several factors could cause this, firstly the pilot appears to be sitting behind the CofG so if he got out the aircraft would immediately become nose heavy, then with him not onboard the elevator which he would usually be holding fully up, stick right back, would drop down and lift the tail, although he might get away by tying the stick back with the seat harness or his trouser belt. Lastly Rotary engines are difficult/impossible to get to idle slowly so they produce a lot of residual thrust, some had blip switches to cut individual cylinders but the pilot would need to be in the cockpit to do that so fidling with the mixture controls to get the slowest idle is all you can do. So the chance of a nose over would be very likely.

Richard

I’ve seen it said that if you left the engine running and got out then it would nose over without the weight of the pilot, and that it would be impossible to stop and re-start the engine alone.

Surely if the aircraft was going to nose over when the pilot got out, it would nose over whether it was running or not.

Interesting. I should point out that my musings about what was possible, or plausible, from the evidence (or speculation) presented in this thread bear no relationship whatsoever to whether I think that Billy Bishop was anything but completely honest in his version of events.

From my reading, there was no controversy at the time (the general staff at the time investigated the details for 2 months before awarding the VC). The fact he was flying a dawn patrol alone was because none of the other pilots in his squadron wanted to get out of bed, not because Bishop had nefarious plans that morning.

It only became an issue with the publishing of a book ~60 years later, and a documentary that dramatized the scene and embedded it in peoples mind as gospel. Oddly enough, both the book and documentary were produced by Canadians.

And regarding the German records, many records were destroyed during the retreat of 1918, with most of the remaining luftzkrieg archives being destroyed along with the luftwaffe’s documents at the end of WWII. Of course, that is not proof the event happened, but that german documents can’t be located that mention it doesn’t deny it either.

Most of the arguments seem to have their basis on the fact Bishop was NOT a good cadet, and cheated on his exams. This Bishop admitted to. So because he cheated to become a pilot, all his other victories must be lies to.

Captain William Avery “Billy” Bishop, seated in cockpit of an Nieuport 17 aircraft, holding onto the grip of an over-wing mounted Lewis machine gun aimed upwards