Who's the Aussie that got von Richtofen?

[JFM 18]

Hello. Just a few nitpicky things.

 

First, my take on who killed MvR: Who the hell knows? Everybody fixates on the machine gunners and there are good theories for Buie and Popkin, but why not a soldier with a rifle? Lot of talk against both a machine gunner or rifleman because of how hard it would be to overcome bullet spread or leading the plane but somebody overcame it. I just won't say it was Popkin and discount all those other soldiers winging off shots. And, in my view, respectfully, it was not Brown. The bullet the killed MvR came from his right to left; Brown attacked from MvR’s left to right. Just that easily Brown is ruled out because MvR would have had to roll nearly inverted for Brown to hit him and there is neither a single eyewitness account of, nor tactical purpose for, this having happened. Again, my two cents. (I know Pol and I will continue to agree to disagree. )

 

As far as violating his rules that day, MvR actually did not. What is usually quoted as proof of such a violation comes from MvR’s Air Combat Manual General Principles, in which "One should never obstinately stay with an opponent who, through bad shooting or skillful turning, one has been unable to shoot down, when the battle lasts until far [my emphasis] on the other side and one is alone and faced by a greater number of opponents." Normally, when this is quoted, the word "far" is omitted; even Peter Kilduff left it out when quoting the manual in the main text of Beyond the Legend of the Red Baron. But check the Air Combat Operations Manual in the back of that book; the word “far” is there. It’s also in the German language document I have, typed and signed by Richthofen (a copy, of course—I am not so lucky to have the original!).

 

Thus, was MvR "far" behind the lines 21 April 1918? Nope. Where he crashed was about 2.5-3 miles behind the lines. In an airplane, that distance is nothing. Was he facing a greater number of opponents? Nope. He was chasing May--no threat there--and the only other plane around was Brown's, who made one diving attack and then left. I dare say it is speculation that MvR even saw Brown's attack. Clearly, as I always say, it was MvR's altitude that got him in the most trouble, not distance. Put him three miles behind the lines at 10,000 feet and no small arms would touch him. Put him over the lines at 50 feet and still the small arms danger was there--didn't even have to be behind the lines at that altitude, just near them. Look at Mannock.

 

Regarding his speed, MvR wasn’t travelling at 100 mph when shot. He had turned back East into the wind to return to his lines. The weather reports I have for that day place the easterly windspeeds at 20-35 mph. Assuming an airspeed of 100 mph, then MvR would have first flown by at 120-135 mph groundspeed (GS=airspeed + tailwind, or airspeed - headwind, for those unsure) when chasing May, then when he turned for home his groundspeed would have plummeted to 65-80 mph.

 

Also, regarding MvR being shot in the head (6 July 1917) at long range, my extensive research into the events of this wounding reveal he was shot at extremely close range. 300 meters is just when the FE2d first opened fire. MvR was in a head-on run with this FE2d and they covered the 300 meter distance in seconds; only upon convergence did MvR lose control. I.e., when he was wounded (and simultaneously blinded, and paralyzed, and when his arms and legs fell from the controls). And, the kicker: he wasn’t shot by Woodbridge or Cunnell in the FE2d! (As an aside, even though he didn’t shoot MvR, Woodbridge gets all the credit for it. Why not Cunnell? He was in that FE2d and firing at MvR, too. Everybody overlooks that—although it really doesn’t matter, since Cunnell didn’t shoot him, either.) Who shot him? I can't determine that. I can determine who it wasn't, however, and it wasn’t the FE2d he was going nose-to-nose with. It wasn't "Kurt Wolff behind him," either, as some believe. (I devoted an entire chapter to 6 July in my MvR book, for those interested, and the topic will be revisited in the FE2 vs Albatros Scouts "Duel" book I'm writing for Osprey.)

 

Anyway, forgive me. I get carried away. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but I appreciate the opportunity to ramble.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

C'mon Jim, don't beat around the bush. Tell us what you really think.

 

But seriously, erudite as always Sir.

 

.

[Flyby PC 23]

Just to repeat myself JFM, 200m rifle shot with a moving target at 100mph or 60mph makes little difference. The bullet trajectory entered through the side so there's no question it was a deflection shot, and it would be such a lucky shot for a rifleman to take I honestly and sincerely doubt they'd bother wasting the ammunition. I readily expect most squaddies would have sat back to watch the spectacle, and In terms of probability of firing the fatal shot, I would say it was negligible.

 

Second point about MVR breaking his own rules as I understand them is not that he followed his target across enemy lines, but that he uncharacteristically followed his target down to low level, and forfeited the advantages he recognised - greater altitude gave over his target, while denying himself the option to dive out of trouble himself, and of course, bringing himself in range of small arms fire from the ground. (Small arms being machineguns, not rifles in my opinion). This is where the issue of target fixation arises and what he was thinking when he forfeited all his advantage as hunter to follow a fleeing target to the deck where his DR1 had to compete with the flat out head to head speed of a Camel, and had to climb it's way out of trouble.This was recognised by many as a lapse in the Baron's normally impecable judgement, and prompted the speculation about his state of mind at the time.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Flyby PC

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Outstanding discussion here and excellent points being made by all. My opinion about MvR's actions that day is that he had hit that point which so many of the WWI flyers seemed to have hit after being in the thick of it for months and years. The ones who kept notes or diaries nearly all expressed the same thing, though each in their own way, and I suppose 'resigned' comes as close as any word to summing it up. Resigned: to the idea that they were not going to survive the war; to the fear that the situation wasn't going to change; to the realization that the whims of the gods had far more to do with their life or death than their own actions; to the fact that above all else they were just tired. Once that thing gets stuck in your brain it sits there. You might push it back and try to work around it, but it is still there, just waiting. The few long-serving veteran pilots who outlived the war were simply lucky. Lucky that when the moment came and that thing came creeping out from it's hiding place, affecting their actions in battle, it didn't get them killed.

 

Just my opinion, based on my own readings over the years, and my observations of human nature.

 

.

[Olham 164]

JFM, I like your "nitpicking" details, cause they are well researched.

Especially that bit about the wind direction and speed was mostly overlooked in the documentaries, it seems.

As for the word "far" - 3 miles is not far into enemy terrain, when you fly at an altitude, from which you could

even glide a damaged kite back over the lines. But as you said, low as he was flying (almost hitting a church

tower!) - I find it far.

[JimAttrill 24]

I totally agree with RAF_louvert, you only have to read what some of the pilots wrote at the time to agree that they were tired of it rather like the PBI who did not expect to live through the war.

[Flyby PC 23]

One last point about air speed is knowing it. MVR might have known his airspeed, but nobody on the ground did. That matters less if the target is flying straight towards you, but with a side on deflection shot the speed of the aircraft and speed of your single bullet are both critical. Could you tell the difference between an aircraft flying at 60mph and 100mph or any speed in between? Bear in mind, these fellas had little concept of 60mph anyway. With a machine gun, you're not worrying about a single bullet, because there's a stream of bullets spaced at 0.15 second intervals, marked every fifth round with a tracer round which you can see from your position all the way to the target. I don't know the muzzle velocity of the Vickers, but guess at around 700m/s. That means at 600m, you only have to predict where the plane will be in the next few seconds to have a fair chance of catching the target, and at any one time you have ten bullets already in the air, (and until you correct, all of them missing, but at least they tell you by how much to adjust). That sounds easy, but don't forget a minute adjustment at the firing position, even a fraction of a degree, might become an adjustment of 30 ft by the time the bullet has travelled 600m. You can correct your stream of bullets by their proximity to the target, but it's difficult. Roughly speaking, the maths you're doing to correct your fall of shot relates to the last 20 or 30 feet of tracer arcing towards the target, not some miraculous judgement you work out before your bullet leaves the rifle. In range with a clear line of sight, I'd say it's possible, perhaps probable at short range that you could hit a moving target, difficult, but probable. To hit it with a rifle remains virtually impossible until a much, much closer range, preferably landed and on the ground.

 

I think the reports are spot on in recognising the possibility of a 'freak' shot from a rifle, but it's so unlikely they pay it lip service and focus instead on machine gun positions which were much more likely to be hitting the target, and which also had their tracer visible for other observers to witness.

 

Take me up on the challenge to get into the waste gun of the B17 and see if you can 'snipe' a bandit with a single shot. It's not possible. It's a waste of a round. You want to believe it was a lucky shot from a rifle, then best of luck to you. I can't persuade you otherwise, but I would bet all my worldly goods that it wasn't.

[+Polovski 414]

Great info JFM always.

 

Riflemen having a pop? I would. If a fancy triplane heads my way and I spent months in mud holes I'm having a pop don't care what the chances are - I'd probably throw my last tin of beef at him.

 

With all the other partial facts yes it is doubtful if Brown fired the major hit but nevertheless not impossible and so cannot be ruled out, maybe he wounded him before.

Also as bullets can deflect we will never truly know anyway there are plenty of angled metal parts in the DR1. So no one firing at him can be ruled out really.

 

MvR could easily have done a split second partial flat turn right to avoid fire, or maybe with left wing down to look down - revealing the underarm and angle. This would not just be for Brown but for other rifle shots. Wasn't he wounded more than once, and was not subject to a full post mortem? If so maybe it could be considered a shared kill.