Billy Bishop c.o. 85 Squadron

[spad]

What date did he take command?

I have read May 1918 but again, every source is different... Spring 1918, May 1918, early 1918. Is there an actual day that he appeared and took command, or when he was assigned to the command? May seems too late if, as is often reported he cherry-picked the "Three Musketeers" and Horn. Unless his intent was to give him a clique to support the same claims he'd made in 60 Squadron.

He obviously didn't pick his other flight commanders because George Baker and "Bolo" Benbow were higher in seniority an experience than Horn (or indeed Bishop). In fact 85 Squadron was a very experienced group and the "Three Musketeers" were additions to flights which boasted a number of veterans of the air war or the ground war.

regsrds

Keith

[Vin]

Originally Posted by spad

What date did he take command?

I have read May 1918 but again, every source is different... Spring 1918, May 1918, early 1918. Is there an actual day that he appeared and took command, or when he was assigned to the command? May seems too late if, as is often reported he cherry-picked the "Three Musketeers" and Horn. Unless his intent was to give him a clique to support the same claims he'd made in 60 Squadron.

He obviously didn't pick his other flight commanders because George Baker and "Bolo" Benbow were higher in seniority an experience than Horn (or indeed Bishop). In fact 85 Squadron was a very experienced group and the "Three Musketeers" were additions to flights which boasted a number of veterans of the air war or the ground war.

You'd think that those tasked with leading the newly formed RAF would have in mind experience and leadership qualities when appointing to active and front line Squadrons, rather than issues of "claims". You seem to be on top of detail, appointment dates aside, what do you think was the purpose of appointing Bishop / 3 Musketeers to 85RAF ?

[Graeme]

It seems that most accounts give the date that the squadron deployed to France as the date that Bishop assumed command, although I have a note that he was actually appointed CO at a date in March.

This appears to be based on the announcement that appeared in London Gazette number 30739 (11 June 1918), page 6902:

From Flight Comdrs., and to be temp Majors whilst so empld. : —

Capt. (temp. Maj.) W. A. Bishop, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., Canadian Light Horse, from a Chief Instr. (graded as a Sqdn. Comdr.) Schools of Aerial Gunnery, and to retain his temp. rank whilst so empld. 13th Mar. 1918, with seniority from 28th Aug. 1917.

If this supposition is correct, it would have given Bishop around two months in which to finalise the make-up of the squadron.

Graeme

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Graeme

It seems that most accounts give the date that the squadron deployed to France as the date that Bishop assumed command, although I have a note that he was actually appointed CO at a date in March.

This appears to be based on the announcement that appeared in London Gazette number 30739 (11 June 1918), page 6902:

From Flight Comdrs., and to be temp Majors whilst so empld. : —

Capt. (temp. Maj.) W. A. Bishop, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., Canadian Light Horse, from a Chief Instr. (graded as a Sqdn. Comdr.) Schools of Aerial Gunnery, and to retain his temp. rank whilst so empld. 13th Mar. 1918, with seniority from 28th Aug. 1917.

If this supposition is correct, it would have given Bishop around two months in which to finalise the make-up of the squadron.

Is the Billy Bishop controversy still as heated, Gareme ?

[Graeme]

As far as I'm concerned, Vin, only simmering

We can argue the merits of individual claims and corresponding losses until the cows come home but ultimately the debate become pretty pointless (but not before descending into exchanges of vitriol). Whatever we now believe/think, at the time he was held in sufficient esteem to be bestowed the highest awards for bravery and those can never be taken from him.

Unlike modern events, the Great War wasn't played out before TV cameras, space satellites etc so all we have to go on is the existing paper trail and fragile human memory.

Previously, I'd have fought tooth and nail to prove that Mannock's score was higher than Bishop's but eventually the light dawned - it wasn't the number of victories, it was the man himself. Both were highly regarded by the officer and men beneath them, but I feel that Mannock had the edge in leadership qualities which led to the squadron having a successful combat career.

Now just waiting for the rain to stop and see if the England test cricketers can redeem themselves.

Cheers

Graeme

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Graeme

As far as I'm concerned, Vin, only simmering

We can argue the merits of individual claims and corresponding losses until the cows come home but ultimately the debate become pretty pointless (but not before descending into exchanges of vitriol). Whatever we now believe/think, at the time he was held in sufficient esteem to be bestowed the highest awards for bravery and those can never be taken from him.

Unlike modern events, the Great War wasn't played out before TV cameras, space satellites etc so all we have to go on is the existing paper trail and fragile human memory.

Previously, I'd have fought tooth and nail to prove that Mannock's score was higher than Bishop's but eventually the light dawned - it wasn't the number of victories, it was the man himself. Both were highly regarded by the officer and men beneath them, but I feel that Mannock had the edge in leadership qualities which led to the squadron having a successful combat career.

Now just waiting for the rain to stop and see if the England test cricketers can redeem themselves.

Cheers

Graeme

The old Bishop controversy used to get heated. Hugh Halliday was critical, he knew Bishop's son, I don't suppose he's still about. With threat of war on our doorstep, even here in Melbourne, WW 1 aviation comes to life a bit. One of the coldest Mays on record and 2 summers in lockdown, I've had 1 day at the Tests in lieu of my expected 6-8 over the last 2 Boxing Days. Last I saw, Joe Root (that name still brings a giggle) on 61 with 77 still to get. By the time I finish this post, the match may have been decided.

[Graeme]

Yes, nice to see that Root batted through to the end with 115 not out, reaching 10,000 test runs and his 26th test century; the team needed a fillip.

Joe Warne was critical, too; in correspondence with him, he penned the annotation 'fairground shooting' against one set of multiple claims.

Strange weather we've been having over here, no real winter to speak of, so everything in the garden started showing early only to get hit by frost; then a dry April and a hit-and-miss May - a couple of gorgeous days between the generally rubbish days.

See if I can get some gardening done between the showers.

Graeme

[VtwinVince]

'Threat of war'? What, the Chinese are getting ready to invade Oz, or have I missed something?

[spad]

As Graeme has it March 1918 seems the right time. "War Birds" defo has him as officer commanding on 30 Mar.1918, with some days already under his belt.

He replaced R.A. Archer. I have found an Archer (no initials) with 6 Squadron in 1915 but otherwise no mention. Can anyone supply details?

85 Squadron definitely looks like it started with a strong team but no less strong than 74 Squadron. In fact 74 Squadron could be considered a more elite group.

85's relatively poor performance under Bishop (if we miss out the leader's impressive claims - as we have discussed) was I think because Benbow was lost very quickly, Baker was ineffectual and tired after a long tour at the Front, leaving the most junior of the flight commanders, Horn to assume the lead (probably without much input from Bishop). Therefore if he "hand-picked" his squadron, although I doubt this was true, it wasn't a great success.

Benbow, who may have been chosen by Bishop, would have been the best of them (despite over a year out of combat, and having flown an FE8) in terms of victories but his inexperience of combat conditions in the much transformed period 1917-18 led him to folly. Was he trying to show he was up to the job? If Bishop made the choice as flight commander it was not wise. Did he serve on HE with Bishop 1917-18?

George Baker was equally experienced (but less successful, flying the appalling BE12 and the much more appropriate SPAD VII). A long period at the front and very limited success would hardly make him an elite scout pilot, although definitely a brave one. He was probably axed by Mannock.

I wonder if there was also an element of competition between 74 and 85? With 85 considerably behind in terms of success, a fact that Caldwell leader of 74 Squadron might have enjoyed after living under the "Bishop Reputation" regime in 60 Squadron. Perhaps for recruiting purposes Bishop had to succeed, and there was a desire to give enthusiastic confirmation to every hopeful claim made under his leadership? The fact that 25 of the first 39 were claimed by Bishop shows the squadron as a whole was not nearly as elite was later claimed.

Under Mannock it overperformed, (with the help of flight commanders like Randall and McGregor), and the result was some of the best pilots (Longton, Dixon, Carruthers, Canning) were transferred out to lead flights in other squadrons.

The Americans were earmarked for flight command in American squadrons anyway, so their reputations would be made whatever happened. Promotion to flight commander after a couple of months as a flight member and perhaps a victory, was sufficient to guarantee command.

The adoption of hand-picked status largely related to Elliot Springs impressions in print of himself and his friends, Bishop and Horn, as elite pilots. I suspect Bishop (advised by Horn) picked them as OK pilots but mostly great mess members, and the sort of chaps who'd confirm his claims if required, and he would reciprocate. I believe Horn was deputy leader under Bishop in 60 Squadron, and led the flight for a month or so after Bishop left so there was a close collaboration there. Did they recognise a kindred spirit? Add the North American Press Corps and "Robert is your mother's sibling" as we say here. C Flight, under Horn with the three Americans, massively overperformed the others in 85 during Bishop's command.

One pilot of another flight, the politically connected Alec "Lady Mary" Cunningham Reid was the only other star in this period where lone patrols were rewarded without confirmation. He was also probably sacked by Mannock, and became a staff officer (with a DFC) after just two months at the front.

In short Bishop's squadron was not the star turn it was hoped to be, but led by Mannock and Crowe turned out to be quite a workman-like performer in late 1918.

Billy Bishop, God luv'im. Did he ever take umbrage when people questioned his success? I have postulated that his relationship with Barker was a confused one (Barker the better pilot and more successful "ace" in real terms), in some way focussed on two largely unidentified, unlikely dogfights where the VC was awarded. Did they discuss it later I wonder, each trying to convince the other of their "facts"?

I have not read Mac McGregors memoirs. Does he give any insight into Bishop and his friends?


regards

Keith

[Vin]

Originally Posted by VtwinVince

'Threat of war'? What, the Chinese are getting ready to invade Oz, or have I missed something?

Taiwan and ANZUS treaty