Bishop. New evidence

[alex_revell]

I was recently given the privilege of reading the unpublished autobiography of a very distinguished RFC/RAF pilot. The autobiography was never intended for publication, but written purely for his children so that they might have some record of his early life.
I have withheld the name of this officer at the request of the family.
The extract which follows takes up after the officer has debated the question of the British reluctance to name their top fighter pilots, although both France and Germany had done so. Questions had been raised in Parliament about this and it was decided that some
names would be released, although this never became official policy of the RFC/RAF.

Extract. ‘It so happened that, coinciding with an instruction from England to the RFC in France that certain names be released a new pilot arrived at 60 Squadron He came back one day from a lone patrol over the enemy lines, and completed his combat report according to custom. This stated that he had shot down an enemy aircraft and seen it crash at a certain place. On his way back he had been attacked by several enemy aircraft, and shot down one. As he was out alone his statement was unconfirmed. He made a fairly graphic description of his combat when he wrote out his report.
Combat reports were of course scrutinised by the Squadron Commander, commented upon if appropriate, and signed. They were then forwarded to Wing for similar treatment, then to Brigade. The Major commented 'Lieutenant B was flying alone and this is unconfirmed’. Wing made a similar comment and passed to Brigade. This was the sort of stuff to satisfy the carping critics in Parliament! Squadron was informed that these victories had been approved.
Lieut. B was no fool. He realised that since his claim had been allowed there could be other claims – there would be, lots of them! These would also be allowed. For to disallow them was to cast doubt on the veracity of the claimant whose first two claimed victories had already been accepted as truth and dished out to an enthusiastic press in England. There could be no going back. This pilot proceeded to ‘shoot down’ many German aircraft when he was out alone, with his victories unconfirmed, and indeed unseen even by ‘Archie’.
Needless to say promotion and honours quickly came his way. He could not always fly alone. He had to lead flights and other formations over the lines. If it were commented upon that these forays did not result in victories he would reply that he did not mind risking his own life; he hated to risk the lives of those who followed him. In fact he was not prepared to do so.
Decorations were showered upon him. He came to be credited with some 80 victories. Finally he was awarded the Victoria Cross for his attack on a German fighter squadron on the ground. He shot down enemy pilots as they took off to intercept him.
I was not in 60 at the time so how do I know these things, it may be asked. I went to 60 soon after B had left. I arrived full of admiration for his wonderful record. Soon I realised that there was in the Squadron a question as to the truth of B’s claims bordering on total disbelief. This astounded me in view of the strict regulations governing the crediting of combat victories. I thought it was a case of claims being exaggerated. I was wide of the mark.
After the war I was invited to write the 60 Squadron history, and for this purpose all the records were placed at my disposal. My main interest of course lay in the combat reports, which were as I have stated. Furthermore, from the German archives came the information that there was no raid on any German aerodrome on the stated date. This sort of swindle I find particularly mean and contemptible. It emerges as an insult to those ‘lesser mortals’ who fought and died fighting the war under heavy handicap. I have sometimes wondered if B was always happy in his post-war years, or whether he sometimes suffered from remorse on account of he 80 bogus claims’. End of extract

[Vin]

Facinating reading. My betters will be able to deduce the identity of the un named officer. He will be dead, by now. The family will be, at best, two generations younger. It is possible that at least some of those made it a condition of Alex reading the unpublished autobiography that he withhold the author's name did not know the author and that he did not know them.

Some years ago, I was given access to the unpublished autobiography of Captain John “Jack” Wright, who flew with 4AFC and led C Flight, by his great nephew purely on the basis of my interest in WW 1 aviation. “Jack” had typed the account on a hand typewriter. He, too never intended that it be published and it was written for his family. According to his great nephew, Jack never claimed to be distinguished. In the autobiography, he mentions Cobby, King, McLoughry, George Jones and others better known than he. His great nephew had no reservations whatsoever about me providing copies to other enthusiasts, which I did. A number of contributors to this forum have copies.

Why the secrecy ?

[Ross_Moorhouse]

Originally posted by Vin@Jun 29 2004, 09:52 PM
[b] Facinating reading. My betters will be able to deduce the identity of the un named officer. He will be dead, by now. The family will be, at best, two generations younger. It is possible that at least some of those made it a condition of Alex reading the unpublished autobiography that he withhold the author’s name did not know the author and that he did not know them.

Some years ago, I was given access to the unpublished autobiography of Captain John “Jack” Wright, who flew with 4AFC and led C Flight, by his great nephew purely on the basis of my interest in WW 1 aviation. “Jack” had typed the account on a hand typewriter. According to his great nephew, Jack never claimed to be distinguished. He mentioned Cobby, King, McLoughry, George Jones and others better known than he. His great nephew had no reservations whatsoever about me providing copies to other enthusiasts, which I did. A number of contributors to this forum have copies.

Why the secrecy ?

Vin, How could I get a copy of this?

[Vin]

Check your Aerodrome email, Ross

[Darryl]

Originally posted by Vin@Jun 29 2004, 07:52 PM
[b]

Why the secrecy ?

Whilst in no way claiming to be your better (coming, as I do, from the wrong side of this Great Brown Land), it is true that the identity of the author is no great mystery. However the family has requested anonymity and surely that alone is enough? What can be gleaned from personal knowledge and breadth of library, is entirely different to a bland statement that " 'X' said!!"

Actually Alex's post has solved a minor mystery for me. The gentleman in question (assuming I am correct) made several statements in print that I have always felt left it entirely to the reader to decide whether they were flattery or contempt. Carefully worded so that they do tend to encourage whichever prejudice the reader has, they are, IMHO calculated to cause the least trouble whilst still going on record as "having said".

Having seen the vitriol heaped upon those who comment, or their families who reveal that comment was made, it is of little surprise to me that the request was made.

Just idle musings from one who does little these days but idly muse.

respectfully

Darryl

(a past beneficiary of Vin's generosity.)

[Ginger.]

That bit about leading patrols and being very ordinary strikes a cord. BB (according to BB!) had no problem clearing the skies of the Hun while flying alone, anybody know how many of the 80 WERE winessed by his peers?

[Barrett]

Long ago Al Lowe had a list of about 24 of BB's claims which were witnessed. (We know, however, that merely having witnesses does not ensure the claimed result.)

[albatros]

Great stuff, Alex. Thanks for sharing. just goes to show the truth always comes out---eventually!

[Vin]

Originally posted by albatros@Jun 30 2004, 09:12 AM
[b] Great stuff, Alex. Thanks for sharing. just goes to show the truth always comes out---eventually!

It is great stuff. First hand. It tells us that skepticism about Bishop's claims were contemporaneous . But by the account, truth does not come out. The unknown (well, not to Darryl, anyway) was not at 60RFC when Bishop was making his claims. He takes his information from what others at 60RFC say - and they weren't with Bishop when he was on his solo patrols either. Heresay only.

And as for you, Darryl, sitting smugly on the other side of the lucky country, "musing" (boozing, more likely), well, why not amuse others of us by at least giving us a subtle hint - like a list of personnel at 60RFC with an asterix or arrow pointing at the distinguished unknown.

[Michael]

Originally posted by Ginger.@Jun 29 2004, 10:16 AM
[b] BB (according to BB!) had no problem clearing the skies of the Hun while flying alone,

One point is that a single plane has a better chance of not being spotted than a flight or squadron.