WWI Digest 395 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Nungesser's Nieuport by mbittner@juno.com 2) Re: Testors/Hawk Nie.17 by mbittner@juno.com 3) Re: Testors/Hawk Nie.17 by mbittner@juno.com 4) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Sandy Adam 5) Thursday, 11 January 1917, Plessis by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 6) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by michel.lefort@ping.be (Michel LEFORT) 7) Observation Balloons by Eric Hotz 8) Ultimate Ragwing followup question by Lawrence Dunn 9) Re: Ultimate Ragwing followup question by Carlos Valdes 10) Technical problems by Robert Godfrey 11) RE: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Shane Weier 12) RE: Observation Balloons by Shane Weier 13) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 14) RE: Embarassing Top Aces question. by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 15) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Carlos Valdes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:21:12 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Nungesser's Nieuport Message-ID: <19970111.072033.13446.3.mbittner@juno.com> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:01:36 -0500 "Valenciano . Jose" writes: > Let me add a branch to this thread, Did Nungesser fly a Nieuport > 11? If so, what colours was it in? In _Lafayette Escadrille Pilot Biographies_, there is a picture of Nungessor supposedly leaning up against a Nie.16. Not an 11, but close enough. ;-) I can't give exact colors, but the plane is overall very dark. There is also a light surround to the upper surface of the lower wing - probably either the sky blue or light yellow from the undersruface. Sorry I can't be of more help. I'm terrible at trying to guess colors from black and white's. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:21:12 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Testors/Hawk Nie.17 Message-ID: <19970111.072033.13446.4.mbittner@juno.com> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:00:51 -0500 "Valenciano . Jose" writes: > R> In the Datafile Special they show a camouflaged version for > R> Nungessor (N.1490) upper surfaces green and brown and lower > R> either clear doped or pale yellow?, also has presumed blue > R> 'Cone de penetration'. Page 16 "I" and page 28 Photo 53. > Could the undersides have been doped aluminum? Actually I would venture that the underside was indeed doped aluminum. That's how Ray's painting shows it, and that would be more logical than clear doped or yellow. But that's the problem with WW1; you can't be a Spock and get away with it. There will *always* be an execption to any rule one may come up with. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:21:12 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Testors/Hawk Nie.17 Message-ID: <19970111.072033.13446.5.mbittner@juno.com> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997 00:36:25 -0500 bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) writes: > Which one? There were at least three of 'em. Yep, at least three Nie.17 types. Two "standard" fuselage, and one bis. The primary reference for the type 17 Triplanes in Windsock, Vol 7 No 2. Vintage Warbirds number 10 has a photo (or two?) of a type 10 Triplane. WW1 Aero #112 has a detailed analysis by J.M. Bruce. > Going by photos of only modest quality, I'm thinking that two of > 'em were overall green/brown with aluminum undersurfaces with > that typical aluminum outline to the upper wing surfaces. The > third one (in RFC markings!) is lighter and could be either > overall yellow or aluminum with the aluminum being my first > guess. > > I'm reasonably comfortable with the green/brown/aluminum surmise > on the first two but my comments on the RFC edition are strictly > a (hopefully) educated guess - no warranties on that 'un. According to the Windsock article, your spot on with the first assumption; however it does state that your second assumption of the third triplane is actually aluminum doped overall. Just going by what the article says. FWIW, Vol 7 No 2 of Windsock contains 1/72nd drawings, if you're interested. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:27:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote: > > There are those who would make the argument that Bishop and not Mannock > was the highest scoring British (or, at least British Empire) ace. Their > arguments should be given the same weight as Bishop's victory > claims - i.e., divide 'em in half and you'll be approaching the truth. Interesting observations on this in Bishop's son's book "The Courage of the Early Morning" where he compares Bishops probable total of "more than one hundred enemy aircraft" with Richthofens sometimes dubious victories. All you can know for sure is that allied claims were usually very stringently checked and many, many victories were disallowed as no corroboration could be found. This was made difficult by two reasons: 1- The Germans tended in general to fly fewer patrols low over allied territory and thus many actions took place where wreckage would fall behind enemy lines and: 2- The prevailing wind over the 14-18 front blew from west to east which meant aircraft coming down in-or-out of control would tend to glide or be blown behind the german lines where german pilots could much more easily obtain verification for their victories. I would tend to regard all german totals like Richthofen's as the higher likelihood of what the pilot actually achieved, allied (especially British with their 'not-cricket' view of exaggeration) claims as the minimum total which the pilot had managed to make officialdom accept. Thus I think there is little doubt that people like Mannock and McCudden and Bishop probably achieved much higher scores than Richthofen but were never officially credited for them. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:53:50 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Thursday, 11 January 1917, Plessis Message-ID: <32D7E1BE.5DCF@host.dmsc.net> 892. Foggy and muggy all day. Too much fog to permit flying in morning and after we got out in readiness to fly this afternoon it began to snow so we couldn't go up. It disgusted me. Wrote some more of my war diary this morning and a good part of this afternoon and wrote letters to Patrina Colis and Miss Mooney. Received a Christmas card from Miriam Griffin and postal from Dugan who is at Cazaux [at] the machine gun school. Have been promised to be permitted to take the Spad which is here out for a flight on the first clear day. Hope I can do so to-morrow. List of "disponsibles" posted today and we three are on it. ************************** from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 17:20:18 GMT From: michel.lefort@ping.be (Michel LEFORT) To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <32e07381.6453252@relay.ping.be> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 04:10:49 -0500, you wrote: > > >I wrote: > >>Belgium Willie Coppens > > >OK, I wrote "Willie" instead of "Willy" - so shoot me! :-) > I'll sure do. From a Hanriot HD-1, of course ;-). Regards. Michel Lefort - Braine-l'Alleud, Belgium IPMS Belgium foreign liaison officer (member F147) http://www.ping.be/IPMS Plastic Modelling is holding history in your hand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:47:31 -0800 From: Eric Hotz To: wwi Subject: Observation Balloons Message-ID: A question from someone new to the list: I am currently putting together a display game of "Blue Max" using 1/72 scale models at local tabletop miniatures gaming convention (March 14-16th, 1997). I want to build a few observation balloons for the game, but eventhough I can find many photographs of both German and Allied balloons, I haven't yet been able to determine what colour they were. What colour were the observation balloons? I also noticed that some of the German balloons had Iron Crosses painted on them- did the Allies also put their markings on their balloons? thanks, Eric Hotz -------------------------------------------------------------- | Eric Hotz | * * * | | HOTZ ARTWORKS - ILLUSTRATION & DESIGN | | | (Art with a Byte) | All generalizations | | E-Mail: erichotz@cyberstore.ca | are false | | Web-Site: (still opening soon) | | | Phone/Fax: 24hrs (604) 888-9414 | (including this one) | | | | | Address: Suite 110 - 19533 Fraser Hwy | | | Surrey, BC V3S 6K7 Canada | * * * | -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:29:09 -0800 From: Lawrence Dunn To: wwi Subject: Ultimate Ragwing followup question Message-ID: <32D82245.5650@mail.idt.net> Thanks to all who gave their input as to the ultimate WWI 1/48 fighter kit. Seems like I got more suggestions for the Hun, so will build up one of those first. The winner, selected democratically, is the Eduard Albatros DV/DVa! I already have the neato Jaguar 1/48th fig of the aerial sausage-eater being helped with his flying suit by a thrall, which is as you all know SUPERB and will accompany the kit nicely. A follow-up question: help! I remember reading that Goering (no umlaut on my keyboard!) flew a white . . . Albatros? . . . with "Doch Nicht Dir" written on the tail (what a comedian). Is this true? Or was it the Fokker DVII? Are there decals available? From whom? If it wasn't an Albatros, can you suggest a very flamboyant Albatros jock who had an outrageous color scheme, and appropriate decals? (I don't have a WWI library, and this'll probably be my only kit, so economy of scale dictates I beg for your guidance rather than invest heavily). Hope springs eternal, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:00:08 -0500 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi Subject: Re: Ultimate Ragwing followup question Message-ID: <32D82988.207@conted.gatech.edu> Larry, Goering flew a black-fuselaged D.V with white nose and tail while CO of Jasta 27; this scheme is one of the two included in the Eduard kit. It was Udet who carried the legend "Du Doch Nicht!!" on the elevator of at least one of his Fokker D.VIIs. If you want a colorful D.V, take a look at some Jasta 5 machines, one of which is the other scheme that comes with the kit. Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:33:15 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Godfrey To: wwi Subject: Technical problems Message-ID: <199701120033.SAA18329@sound.net> Hello Group I seem to be having trouble getting through. I'm still on the digest and I sent in a post, but it never appeared in the digest. I'm wondering if a persons own messages are left off the digest list as the are left off the list unless requested otherwise. If so with the list too, how do you get your postings on the digest? "set WWI ack" as on the list? This is a sneaky way to check the list again without using the despised "test" word. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:55:40 +1100 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <01BC007F.88CFD620@pc087b.mim.com.au> Now, now Bill, Are you trying to offend we Aussies by leaving out *our* top scorer? Since you have apparently dropped Bishop for inflated claims, and Collishaw too, perhaps 'cos the Canucks all flew with either RNAS, RFC, or RAF squadrons, I'll leave out both Bob Little (RNAS) and Dallas (RNAS) and add the top Australian ace who flew purely with the AFC A.H. (Harry) Cobby Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:01:49 +1100 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Observation Balloons Message-ID: <01BC0080.64D7A800@pc087b.mim.com.au> Eric, What you need is a copy of the last but one issue of C&CI, which is entirely devoted to balloons. >I haven't yet been able to determine what colour they were. What colour >were the observation balloons? No colour info that I can recall except that the painting on the cover show a ballon in khaki / light brown. >I also noticed that some of the German balloons had Iron Crosses painted on >them- did the Allies also put their markings on their balloons? One thing that DID stick in my mind was that German and American balloons were marked, British were not marked. French I'm afraid i don't recall. HTH Shane ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:33:52 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <199701120433.AA25705@ednet1.orednet.org> In our last episode, Sandy was saying: > >On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote: >> >> There are those who would make the argument that Bishop and not Mannock >> was the highest scoring British (or, at least British Empire) ace. Their >> arguments should be given the same weight as Bishop's victory >> claims - i.e., divide 'em in half and you'll be approaching the truth. > >Interesting observations on this in Bishop's son's book "The Courage of >the Early Morning" where he compares Bishops probable total of "more than >one hundred enemy aircraft" with Richthofens sometimes dubious victories. Ah, I KNEW is shouldn't have opened this Billy Bishop can of worms! Still, if Bishop's _son_ (hardly a disinterested source, eh?) is claiming "more that one hundred enemy aircraft" for dear old dad, perhaps that is evidence that Bishop's looseness with fact was genetically based and shouldn't really be held against him. >All you can know for sure is that allied claims were usually very >stringently checked and many, many victories were disallowed as no >corroboration could be found. I beg to differ on this - see my comments below. >This was made difficult by two reasons: >1- The Germans tended in general to fly fewer patrols low over allied >territory and thus many actions took place where wreckage would fall >behind enemy lines and: >2- The prevailing wind over the 14-18 front blew from west to east which >meant aircraft coming down in-or-out of control would tend to glide or be >blown behind the german lines where german pilots could much more easily >obtain verification for their victories. > >I would tend to regard all german totals like Richthofen's as the higher >likelihood of what the pilot actually achieved, allied (especially British >with their 'not-cricket' view of exaggeration) claims as the minimum total >which the pilot had managed to make officialdom accept. Au contaire, mes amis. I would contend that RAF victory totals were somewhat inflated over those of the Germans for several reasons. First, of course, are the (in)famous "out of control" victories. While the effect on the RFC/RAF ace's totals from ooc victories has probably been overstated by some critics (many ooc claims were just awarded 'probables' and thus didn't appear in the final tallies), the fact remains that many, many 'official' victories were ooc's. And while certainly some of those ooc enemy aircraft did, indeed crash, many others, quite obviously, did not. The Germans, on the other hand, had no such animal as an out of control 'kill' - in theory, and almost always in practice, the aircraft had to have been seen to actually crash, catch fire, or the pilot jump or the wreckage had to have been located or there was no confirmed victory. Secondly, the British had the curious practice of awarding a victory to all the pilots involved in downing an enemy aircraft. Thus, if four Camels ganged up on an Albatros artillery spotter and all the Camel pilots succeeded in hitting (or at least claiming to hit the Albatros), EACH of the pilots would be awarded a victory. Not a quarter-victory each, but a full victory. One downed Albatros (assuming it wasn't an ooc victory) but FOUR full victories passed out to the pilots. The Germans, however, had a rather inflexible rule that one downed aircraft equaled one and only one victory. When there were competing claims to downing the same aircraft, higher command would choose (God knows on what basis) one or the other of the pilots to be awarded the 'official' victory. No shared victories and no apportioned victories, period. While this may have inflated the totals of the top German aces a tad (after all, if Rittmeister von Richthofen and Gefrieter Schmidt both submitted a claim on the same 'kill', the high command was almost certain give the victory to MvR - on the other hand, who would YOU pick as the more likely _real_ victor between MvR and the good Gefrieter?) In any case, this system was certainly more accurate than the British practice of giving a victory to _everyone_. Thirdly, in theory and generally in practice, each and every German claim had to be independently confirmed before a victory could be awarded - other pilotd or ground-based observers had to have seen the aircraft crash or catch fire or the wreckage had to be recovered. The report of the pilot alone was insufficient to confirm the victory. No such independent confirmation was required to confirm a victory with the British - a victory could be awarded on the basis of the pilot's report alone! Now this factor takes on added significance in Bishop's case were a goodly portion of his claimed victories occurred while he was flying as a "lone wolf" - we have only Bishop's word on it that these aircraft were actually shot down - no allied flyer or ground observer other than Bishop actually saw what happened and obviously no wreckage was ever recovered or even observed by anyone besides Bishop. My scepticism on Bishop's claims is re-enforced by recent research by Phillip Markham published in Over the Front on Bishop's "lone wolf" air raid on June 2, 1917 for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross _solely_ on his unsupported report of events. While Markham's article is a long one, it is well worth reading. His basic conclusions are: 1)There is NO documentary or other evidence to suggest that any German aerodromes existed on the morning of June 2, 1917 in the area Bishop claimed to have attacked a German airfield, and 2) There is NO documentary or other evidence to show that the Germans lost ANY aircraft in this sector on June 2, 1917, despite the fact that Bishop claimed and was awarded THREE aerial victories during this incident. Thus my skepticism of Bishop, Bishop's claims and the horse he rode in on. That he was a good and courageous pilot, there is no doubt, but I do believe that there was a bit of the "lust for glory" in him which may have, from time to time, led to exaggerations (to be kind!) I am reminded of Thomas Lamphier, of another war, who had a similar "lust for glory" and who went to his grave claiming (and probably eventually even believing) that HE was the pilot who had downed Yamamoto. Of course, the facts, as known at the time, made that quite unlikely and recent research has demonstrated that his claims were false almost beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet Lamphier had access to the media and his self-promoting propaganda was such that most causal students of WW2 believe, even today, that Lamphier was The Man That Got Yamamoto! Bishop was likewise, not indifferent to the media or propaganda. And, with Canadian troops dying by the hundreds each day in the trenches, the Canadian government was Bishop's willing conspirator - it needed a genuine Canadian hero as badly as Bishop wanted to be one. >Thus I think there is little doubt that people like Mannock and McCudden >and Bishop probably achieved much higher scores than Richthofen but were >never officially credited for them. >Sandy I think there is _considerable_ doubt! I once read, can't remember where, that the total number of confirmed British victories on the western front roughly -equaled_ the total German losses on that front from all causes! You'd have thought that the French, the Belgians, the Americans and accident and mechanical failure would have accounted for a few of those losses. Ah, but this has been way too long - let's get back to modeling. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - ............................................................................. - This space for rent - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:44:44 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: RE: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <199701120444.AA00430@ednet1.orednet.org> Shane wrote: >Now, now Bill, > >Are you trying to offend we Aussies by leaving out *our* top scorer? > >Since you have apparently dropped Bishop for inflated claims, and Collishaw >too, perhaps 'cos the Canucks all flew with either RNAS, RFC, or RAF >squadrons, I'll leave out both Bob Little (RNAS) and Dallas (RNAS) and add >the top Australian ace who flew purely with the AFC > >A.H. (Harry) Cobby Certainly didn't mean to slight any of Britain's current "colonies" - I was following the more or less general practice here in Mother England's former colony of lumping all you Empire folks together as "British" - bad form, I know. I promise to be more careful and keep the Poms separate from the English from here on in. :-) Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - ............................................................................. - This space for rent - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:20:31 -0500 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <32D882AF.5C0D@conted.gatech.edu> Bill, If I may add a comment and further example to your very complete response to Sandy, the following quote comes from noted English WWI air historian Norman Franks' latest book, Who Downed the Aces in WWI?: As an historian who has studied the British and Commonwealth air fighters of WWI for many years, I have reluctantly had to face the fact that overclaiming went on at an alarming rate. . . . What, however, I have never discovered is how and why 'higher authority' condoned these 'claims' which so often went towards awards and decorations. Was it merely to keep up morale? (p. 100) Later in the book, discussing an air battle that occurred on April 12, 1918, involving Camels of 43 Squadron, Franks writes Considering the number of aircraft 43 is supposed to have knocked down in this fight, it is a wonder the German fighter force in this sector survived at all! (p. 118) The Camels claimed eight victories, which number matched the TOTAL of the German fighters involved. The actual result? One German downed, with 43 Squadron losing two of their number. This was by no means an unsual occurrance, rather more like the norm, unfortunately. Historical research can be a facinating part of this hobby. Carlos ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 395 *********************