Who was the "Greatest Air Fighter" of WWI??

[Gregvan]

In digging into the other thread about Fonck, I came across some tangentially-related items. I didn't wish to clutter up that thread with this material, but I thought some of it was worthwhile to post.

So who was "The Greatest Air Fighter" of the War? It depends on who you ask. This is an ad for a series of post-war lectures Billy Bishop gave.


Even this French magazine called Bishop the new Ace of Aces of the Allies, after the death of Guynemer.


According to this southern California newspaper, Rickenbacker was "The World's Greatest Sky-Fighter."


However, according to Ira Jones, Mannock was the "King of Air Fighters," better than Richthofen, Bishop, Fonck, Guynemer, McCudden and everyone else.


But in this 1932 magazine interview with Fonck, he surpassed everyone's total.

[Volker_Nemsch]

.
... being "the greatest" depends on the number of victories, or the nationality, or the leadership qualities, or the postwar lives, or propaganda, or, or, or...

It's an induvidual decision (or bias). We will get similar results when talking about the best kings/politicians, meals, cars, sports clubs, movies, weapons, nations...

.

[CjBobrow]

Greg,
These pieces really underscore how fluid the title of “greatest air fighter” became in the years during and after the war. Each clipping reflects the needs and expectations of the audience far more than any settled consensus.

The promotional material around Bishop is a good example—publishers were more than willing to apply sweeping superlatives to fill the space left after losses such as Guynemer’s. The French magazine’s designation fits that same post-Guynemer moment, when someone was always poised to be placed in the vacant role.

Rickenbacker’s elevation by a regional American paper shows how easily national reporting shaped its own narrative, often without reference to broader comparative standards.

Jones’ insistence on Mannock represents something different: an effort to define a post-war legacy within the British framework, with all the personal commitments that shaped his writing.

Fonck’s 1932 interview adds the final layer, reflecting the period when wartime memory had already begun to harden and when personal claims—especially from someone as confident as Fonck—were readily amplified.

Taken together, your clippings make the point that “the greatest air fighter” was never a fixed designation at all, but a construct shaped by national pride, press needs, commercial promotion, and the desire to impose clarity on something inherently complex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GMU]

Thank you Greg for the post,

The problem with this question is figuring out how to define "greatest" airfighter of the First World War. It’s not clear what the right metric would be, nor how we should determine what "greatest" even means.

We could look at who had the greatest impact on the development of air combat; in that case, Boelcke would certainly stand out. We could focus on who achieved the most official victories; then Manfred von Richthofen comes to the forefront. We could consider who was the most effective relative to time served; in that regard, Lothar was remarkable. We could also ask who left the strongest imprint on public memory after the war; in that sense, Manfred von Richthofen is clearly the most written about and the most widely recognized by the general public.

Because of all this, the question itself loses much of its meaning. As Greg says, it depends entirely on whom you ask, when you ask, and how the question is framed. We could debate it all day long.

[VtwinVince]

Indeed a very subjective question. Personally, I'll always go with my uncle, for reasons which are only relevant to me. But 'officially', and as a Canadian, I'm going to nominate Ray Collishaw.

[Bert Angles]

Originally Posted by Volker_Nemsch

.
... being "the greatest" depends on the number of victories, or the nationality, or the leadership qualities, or the postwar lives, or propaganda, or, or, or...



.

OR if we look at it another way we could interpret the question literally,and not look for the top scorer or the best leader but who was the greatest FIGHTER , so you could be looking at Richthofen , Fonck , McCudden etc but also the great little scrappers which would bring into consideration aces with a lower score yet were full of fight and guts . That includes Luke , Bennett, Navarre, Caldwell or the pilot that flew bald headed into any formation regardless of the odds ALBERT BALL.
So Greg your question is good apart from the bit that says " greatest" and the bit that says " air fighter"

[Lufbery]

This is a neat question, and I love seeing the old book jackets!

The thing is, as I have gotten older and hopefully wiser, my focus has shifted a bit from the individual efforts of fighter aces to a more operational or even strategic focus. "Air fighting" encompasses air to air combat, of course, but also artillery spotting, bombing, recon, overall army cooperation, and having the right number of planes in the right place of sufficient quality to help the war on the ground.

To that end, the best "air fighter" could be somebody like Hartney as a very effective wing leader of really green and inexperienced US fighter squadrons. MVR, of course was both an accomplished fighter ace, but also (from what I've read, anyway) a very accomplished wing leader. For that matter, what about Trenchard, who fought both the Germans and his own bureaucracy?

[Gregvan]

I guess I need to point out that I was NOT serious in posting this question. I was merely trying to show that such a "title" has been claimed, over the years, on behalf of a number of airmen in a number of ways - based on national pride and various other agendas. I consider the "greatest air fighter" label to be, in reality, ridiculous and impossible to "prove" as several members have pointed out. Also, as I pointed out in the other thread, I believe that comparing the numbers of credited "victories" of airmen from different nations, and even periods of the war, is a pointless endeavor.

Ira Jones was, in his book, attempting to prove that Mannock was a greater "air fighter" than - specifically - Bishop and to crown Mannock as the British "ace of aces". He fiddled around with Mannock's claims until he came up with 73, one more than Bishop, and this notion persists in some popular "ace" lists. This also gave Jones an opportunity to heap disdain on Richthofen and Boelcke.

Some 'aces' who survived the war were very effective at polishing and publicizing their reputations, while others did not bother. Bishop comes to mind here, and his lecture at Carnegie Hall (no less) was even repeated by popular demand.


Rickenbacker also gave some lectures.


While he never personally claimed to be the "world's greatest", he had obviously pursued the title of American ace of aces during the war, and was not shy about this later.

Ironically, here are three of the world's "greatest aces" together - Bishop, Rickenbacker and Fonck. I believe this was taken when Fonck came to North America in 1927 for his disastrous attempt at a transatlantic flight. All three of these men produced popular memoirs during or soon after the war (in Rickenbacker's and Fonck's case, certainly ghostwritten to some extent) and all three were not shy about courting publicity.



The arguments over "who was the best" persist to this day. Since Collishaw has been mentioned, I will simply post this as an item of interest. I have this obscure article from a little-known magazine called "World War II Investigator" from November 1988 (apparently it was a 'special issue' devoted to WW1 and not WW2). The author Timothy R. Graves was the same T R Graves who later stole original combat reports from what was then the PRO and sold them off - and, his felonious behavior obviously negates the value of this strange article. In it, he plays around with numbers again, obsessing over the various British categories of claims (destroyed, OOC, 'Driven Down', and 'inconclusive, 'witnessed' or 'not witnessed') in an attempt to give Collishaw 81.5 "victories", and also disparages Bishop's claims and VC.

[VtwinVince]

Interesting that you should bring up Graves, Greg. I had a colleague who obtained some of the stolen combat reports, which I could handle. They were fantastic pieces of history, but of course belonged in an archive.

[MikeMeech]

Originally Posted by VtwinVince

Interesting that you should bring up Graves, Greg. I had a colleague who obtained some of the stolen combat reports, which I could handle. They were fantastic pieces of history, but of course belonged in an archive.

Hi

I hope your colleague returned the stolen property to the (then) PRO?

Mike