Map 14: Aircraft [von Richtofen's 80 Victories}

[Hauksbee 103]

     

            The 80 victories of the Red Baron

[This article, for reasons unknown, stopped abruptly after von Richtofen's first crash in a Halberstadt D.II, so I consulted Wikipedia and fleshed out the story. The original article is in red.

Olham: I know that the 'von' in von Richtofen is usually in lower case, but how is it handled when the name is at the beginning of the sentence?]

 

World War I was the first war to see large-scale use of airplanes. At first, they were primarily used for reconnaissance, but both sides increasingly used them for offensive purposes as well. As airplanes dropped bombs on enemy cities in growing numbers, countries started looking for ways to shoot enemy airplanes out of the sky. A key innovation was the synchronization gear, which allowed pilots to fire a gun through a spinning propeller without damaging the blades. This created a new class of fighter airplanes, and a new class of pilots to fly them. The most famous of these "flying aces" was the German pilot Manfred von Richthofen.

 

von Richthofen was a Freiherr (literally "Free Lord"), a title of nobility often translated as Baron. This is not a given name nor strictly a hereditary title—since all male members of the family were entitled to it, even during the lifetime of their father. This title, combined with the fact that he had his aircraft painted red, led to von Richthofen being called "The Red Baron" ("der Rote Baron" both inside and outside Germany. During his lifetime, however, he was more often described in German as Der Rote Kampfflieger (variously translated as "The Red Battle Flyer" or "The Red Fighter Pilot"). This name was used as the title of von Richthofen's 1917 autobiography.

 

Between 1916 and 1918, he achieved 80 victories over enemy aircraft, the highest of any pilot in the war. The Red Baron became a celebrity on both sides of the front line and his victories provided a boost to German morale. After downing 21 enemy planes in April 1917, he was in a crash in July.

 

He was flying his Halberstadt D.II when, on 6 March, in combat with F.E.8s of 40 Squadron RFC, his aircraft was shot through the fuel tank, probably by Edwin Benbow, who was credited with the victory. von Richthofen was able on this occasion to force land without his aircraft catching fire. von Richthofen then scored a victory in the Albatros D.II on 9 March, but since his Albatros D.III was grounded for the rest of the month, von Richthofen switched again to a Halberstadt D.II.

 

He returned to his Albatros D.III on 2 April 1917 and scored 22 victories in it before switching to the Albatros D.V in late June. From late July, following his discharge from hospital, von Richthofen flew the celebrated Fokker Dr.I triplane, the distinctive three-winged aircraft with which he is most commonly associated, although he did not use the type exclusively until after it was reissued with strengthened wings in November.

 

von Richthofen was a brilliant tactician, building on Boelcke's tactics. Unlike Boelcke, he led by example and force of will rather than by inspiration. He was often described as distant, unemotional, and rather humourless, though some colleagues contended otherwise. He circulated to his pilots the basic rule which he wanted them to fight by: "Aim for the man and don't miss him. If you are fighting a two-seater, get the observer first; until you have silenced the gun, don't bother about the pilot".

 

Although he was now performing the duties of a lieutenant colonel (in modern RAF terms, a wing commander), he remained a captain. The system in the British army would have been for him to have held the rank appropriate to his level of command (if only on a temporary basis) even if he had not been formally promoted. In the German army, it was not unusual for a wartime officer to hold a lower rank than his duties implied, German officers being promoted according to a schedule and not by battlefield promotion. For instance, Erwin Rommel commanded an infantry battalion as a captain in 1917 and 1918. It was also the custom for a son not to hold a higher rank than his father, and von Richthofen's father was a reserve major.

 

On 6 July 1917, during combat with a formation of F.E.2d two seat fighters of No. 20 Squadron RFC, near Wervicq, von Richthofen sustained a serious head-wound, causing instant disorientation and temporary partial blindness. He regained consciousness in time to ease the aircraft out of a free-falling spin and executed a rough landing in a field within friendly territory. The injury required multiple surgical operations to remove bone splinters from the impact area. The air victory was credited to Captain Donald Cunnell of No. 20, who was himself shot down and killed a few days later (by anti-aircraft fire). The Red Baron returned to active service (against doctor's orders) on 25 July, but went on convalescent leave from 5 September to 23 October. His wound is thought to have caused lasting damage (he later often suffered from post-flight nausea and headaches) as well as a change in temperament. There is even a theory linking this injury with his eventual death.

 

von Richthofen received a fatal wound just after 11:00 am on 21 April 1918, while flying over Morlancourt Ridge, near the Somme River.

 

At the time, the Baron had been pursuing (at very low altitude) a Sopwith Camel piloted by a novice Canadian pilot, Lieutenant Wilfrid "Wop" May of No. 209 Squadron, Royal Air Force. In turn, the Baron was spotted and briefly attacked by a Camel piloted by a school friend (and flight commander) of May's, Canadian Captain Arthur "Roy" Brown, who had to dive steeply at very high speed to intervene, and then had to climb steeply to avoid hitting the ground. von Richthofen turned to avoid this attack, and then resumed his pursuit of May.

 

It was almost certainly during this final stage in his pursuit of May that a single .303 bullet hit von Richthofen, damaging his heart and lungs so severely that it must have caused a very quick death. In the last seconds of his life, he managed to make a hasty but controlled landing in a field on a hill near the Bray-Corbie road, just north of the village of Vaux-sur-Somme, in a sector controlled by the Australian Imperial Force (AIF). One witness, Gunner George Ridgway, stated that when he and other Australian soldiers reached the aircraft, von Richthofen was still alive but died moments later. Another eye witness, Sergeant Ted Smout of the Australian Medical Corps, reported that von Richthofen's last word was "kaputt".

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2014 by Hauksbee

[JFM 18]

Interesting that Cunnell is given the credit for downing Richthofen 6 July. Usually it is given to his gunner Woodbridge, although Cunnell was also firing. Neither of them shot Richthofen--he was shot by another airplane during that fight--but it is interesting that Cunnell was finally mentioned.

 

Looks like a pretty cool map! But just to fix some Wikipedia-ness: On 6 March MvR was shot down flying an Albatros DIII, and Jasta 11 had exchanged all of their Halberstadts for Albs by the end of Feb. Thus there were no Halbs to fly in March, nor Alb DIIs. His use of a Halberstadt has been greatly exaggerated in a few books.

[Hauksbee 103]

Looking at the text again, I see that they have him shot down by an F.E.2d. Surely that should be F.E.2b (?) And you say the both the pilot & gunner were firing? Could the pilot fire the forward facing gun while the gunner stood? How did they work that out? And something I've wondered about for some time: what kind of rig did the gunner have to keep him from being thrown from the plane while he's standing? Most pictures of the Gun Bus show only one machine gun. Could the gunner move a single gun back and forth between two firing positions?

 

[JFM 18]

Hello!

 

No, that was right, No.20 Squadron flew FE2ds on 6 July. I have the No. 20 Sqn combat reports and squadron record books and they were ds. The obs had two flexible guns as you see in the photos you posted, but No. 20 Sqd had a fixed forward firing Lewis, too, that the pilot fired. LOVE to have that option in a sim! Not to mention the d's 250hp engine.

 

I've read claims of pilots trying to fire one of the flexible guns but that was remote to unlikely. Certainly not standard. Probably couldn't even hit a cumulonimbus cloud if they could even reach a gun. Lanoe Hawker flew FE2bs and he took a carbine up with him to fire, instead of trying to fire one of the machine guns. Strapped in as pilots were, hard to reach them, anyway. But the obs was NOT strapped in, they stood. I've not read of any gunner ever being thrown out. As one said, it was his job to stay in the machine. They were in FAR more danger of being shot to death than they were of falling out.

 

I am NOT well learned regarding the Vickers FB.5. AFAIK there was only a single machine gun and no provision for firing upwards over the top wing. Perhaps someone will chime in if that is wrong or vague.

Here's a No. 20 Sqn FE2d. You can see the pilot's fixed, forward-firing Lewis at left:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[von Baur 54]

Now that looks scary. At first glance it seems destined to turn the observer/gunner into a soprano, but then you can see the gun is offset to starboard. Still, I wonder how many front-seaters got knee-capped (or worse  ) with that arrangement. I seem to remember seeing somewhere a picture of one mounted on the side of the nacelle. That would be a much safer option.

[JFM 18]

That photo is misleading due to its perspective. I'll post a photo below of the same plane from a different angle. You can see that although it could be possible to somehow get in front of the pilot's Lewis, they'd really have to work at it.

 

 

EDIT: Holy smokes, that attached photo is massive but truncated. Click it to see the entire machine.

Edited November 15, 2014 by JFM

[Hauksbee 103]

My worst fears realized: No seat belt or tether when standing. Jinking and turning come with the territory when you're in a dogfight, so if there's no reports of gunners falling out, I can't believe they tried the standing position very often. I poked around on the web looking for a top view to see by how much the pilot's MG was offset to the gunner's position. I'm sure, in actual combat, they were careful not to shoot their own, but it must have been un-nerving when that Lewis went off behind your shoulder. (Edit: Thanks for the new pic., Jim. That clears things up a bit.) I couldn't find a visual, but here's some snippets from the Wiki article that addresses the gunner/observer dilemma and how F.E.2's covered each others vulnerable tails.

 

Early in the F.E.2b's career, a second Lewis gun was added in front of the pilot's cockpit, on a high telescopic mounting so that the pilot could fire forward, over his observer's head. In practice, this gun was appropriated by the observers, especially when they discovered that by climbing onto the rim of their cockpits they could fire backwards over the top wing – to some extent overcoming the notorious deficiency of pusher types in rear defense, although even this failed to cover a very large blind spot under the tail. The observer's perch was a precarious one, especially when firing the "rear gun", and he was liable to be thrown out of his cockpit, although his view was excellent in all directions except directly to the rear. The F.E.2 could also carry an external bomb load, and was routinely fitted with a standard air-photography camera.

 

Wiki caption to Jim' s photo:

An F.E.2d observer demonstrating the use of the rear-firing Lewis gun, which required him to stand on the rim of his cockpit. Note the camera, and the (non-standard) extra Lewis gun for the pilot.

 

The arrangement was described by Frederick Libby, an American ace who served as an F.E.2b observer in 1916:

"When you stood up to shoot, all of you from the knees up was exposed to the elements. There was no belt to hold you. Only your grip on the gun and the sides of the nacelle stood between you and eternity. Toward the front of the nacelle was a hollow steel rod with a swivel mount to which the gun was anchored. This gun covered a huge field of fire forward. Between the observer and the pilot a second gun was mounted, for firing over the F.E.2b's upper wing to protect the aircraft from rear attack ... Adjusting and shooting this gun required that you stand right up out of the nacelle with your feet on the nacelle coaming. You had nothing to worry about except being blown out of the aircraft by the blast of air or tossed out bodily if the pilot made a wrong move. There were no parachutes and no belts. No wonder they needed observers."

 

In combat with single-seater fighters, the pilots of F.E.2b and F.E.2d fighters would form what was probably the first use of what later became known as a Lufbery circle (defensive circle). In the case of the F.E.2, the intention was that the gunner of each aircraft could cover the blind spot under the tail of his neighbour and several gunners could fire on any enemy attacking the group. On occasion formations of F.E.2s fought their way back from far over the lines, while under heavy attack from German fighters, using this tactic.

 

Although outclassed as a day fighter, the F.E.2 proved very suitable for use at night and was used as a night fighter in home defense squadrons on anti-Zeppelin patrols and as a light tactical night bomber. It was first used as a night bomber in November 1916, with the first specialist F.E.2b night bomber squadrons being formed in February 1917. F.E.2bs were used as night bombers in eight bomber squadrons until the end of the First World War, with up to 860 being converted to, or built as bombers. Service as a night fighter was less successful, owing to the type's poor climb and ceiling.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Hauksbee

[von Baur 54]

Yes, that second picture does show the gun's position better. With the muzzle extending to or past the gunner's position it would be nearly impossible to get in front of it and still stay in the aircraft. And comparing the two, it's clear that the gun was considerably more offset than it appeared in the first picture. Thanx.

[JFM 18]

I disagree with Wiki's "liable to be thrown out of his cockpit." Again, I can't find such an instance. If it ever happened, it was very, very, very uncommon. They were MUCH more likely to be shot than thrown out.

 

Here's a lil ol' book that goes into the FE2 and combat with it: http://www.amazon.com/FE-Albatros-I-IV-Western-1916-17/dp/1780963254  The reviews run from "the best WW1 Osprey Duel title yet" to "the most poorly written professional publication." Realistically, it falls somewhere between those extremes. 

Yes, VB, that first photo's perspective is odd and makes it hard to see how the gun was arranged. I'll go through my files and see if I have any other good shots like the second one. 

I have another starboard view but it's practically the same as the second one I posted. I did find the large version of the first one, though, which I wanted to post originally. Here it is:

 

 

 

 

[von Baur 54]

I think the best way to show an exact position would be a straight-on shot, a la the famous picture of Eddie Rickenbacker in his SPAD, or a shot or diagram from overhead. This third one still makes it look like the rear flexible gun's vertical post is touching, or practically, the fixed gun about midway down the barrel. The second photo clearly shows that the entire drum was forward of the post, which means the fixed gun had to be a foot or so to the right of it and much closer to the edge of the gunner's cockpit.

 

Did anyone else think the third picture looked like the gunner was getting sick?

[Olham 164]

Olham: I know that the 'von' in von Richtofen is usually in lower case, but how is it handled when the name is at the beginning of the sentence?]

 

The beginning of a sentence is always with a capital letter, like in English.

"Von" would be correct there.

[Hauksbee 103]

I disagree with Wiki's "liable to be thrown out of his cockpit." Again, I can't find such an instance. If it ever happened, it was very, very, very uncommon.

I think "liable to be thrown out of his cockpit" is being used in the sense of "in danger of...". As you say, no known cases of this happening have ever been reported...tho' I don't know why not. Small miracles do happen, I guess.

[Olham 164]

The photos from the "GHOSTS" calendar by Makana also seem to show the observer unbelted.

 

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=de&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=955&q=FE.2b+observer&oq=FE.2b+observer&gs_l=img.3...2367.10731.0.10939.14.4.0.10.0.0.129.374.3j1.4.0....0...1ac.1.58.img..11.3.302.MmgLsmxc0Ns#facrc=_&imgdii=MfCVxlcNyYE7uM%3A%3Bw63LLlHhRSkdSM%3BMfCVxlcNyYE7uM%3A&imgrc=MfCVxlcNyYE7uM%253A%3B3B7DCXQJeLMSrM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fthevintageaviator.co.nz%252Ffiles%252Fimages%252Ffe-2b%252Fscreensize%252Ffe2b-8709-airmen.screensize.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Friseofflight.com%252Fforum%252Fviewtopic.php%253Ff%253D49%2526t%253D24441%2526start%253D10%3B1200%3B799

 

Otto Fuchs described how he saw an observer falling from his aircraft in a wild manoeuver,

completely with the machine gun he still clung to. But I don't remember which craft it was.

 

Here is a photo from Makana's shots.

I like how we can see the smoke spiralling around the Fokker from the prop wind.

 

 

 

[+Gepard 11,244]

Olham: I know that the 'von' in von Richtofen is usually in lower case, but how is it handled when the name is at the beginning of the sentence?]

 

 

 

In german language the sentence always starts with a capital letter. But in the case when the sentence starts with a title of nobility it is difficult. There are three ways to avoid the small letter "von". The first is to start with the firstname, so the sentence starts with "Manfred von Richthofen ...." or "M. von Richthoven ...." or "M.v.Richthofen ....". The second is to use the titel, "Freiherr von Richthofen ...". And the third is to leave off the "von", so the sentence start with "Richthofen ...." The last version was the most common in that time.

[Hauksbee 103]

 But in the case when the sentence starts with a title of nobility it is difficult.

It is gratifying to know that Germans agonized over the same question. Thanks, Gepard for the options.

[Hauksbee 103]

Here's Makana's pictures from the "Ghosts" calendar and he certainly does looked unbelted in any  way. That may have been standard for the times, but had I been assigned to a F.E.2 unit, I bloody well would have jury-rigged some sort of belt or harness. And If I got any flack from the C.O., he could damn well court martial me. Beats falling 10,000+ ft. any day.

 

 

[JFM 18]

Hauksbee, again, you'd be FAR more likely to be shot to death than falling out. So you'd willingly go forth with a real possibility of being shot to death but not willing to go to avoid something that never happened anyway. That's sort of akin to going to a Shania Twain concert and worrying you forgot to bring condoms because you might have sex with her afterwards and knock her up!   A statistical possibility, and in some crazy circumstances perhaps even ultra-remotely possible, but not bloody likely! You'd be far more likely to be kicked out of the arena after trying to get on the stage. So, falling out could happen but the chances of that paled in comparison to wounding or death by gunshot wounds, avgas immolation, and trauma associated with an airplane crash.

 

Jury rigging a harness might get you killed by the real threat, gunfire, because of the possibility they would restrict the required freedom/range of motion to defend your airplane. And no pilot would stand for that.

 

Most of the maneuvers in those planes would induce positive Gs. I.e, you'd feel them head-to-toe, not laterally. A 60 degree banked turn while maintaining altitude would impart a 2G load that you'd feel pressing you down in the cockpit. I.e., you'd be even less likely to be fall out in that situation than straight and level. Slips and skids would be felt laterally, but not alarmingly so in the FE2 (he typed while sitting at a computer). Negative Gs could "launch" you out but it would also launch everything else out--and right into the prop. Doesn't take much to destroy a prop. There is a great anecdote by McCudden who recalled that when he flew FE2ds they were so stable he could unbuckle himself, stand on the seat, and look backward over the top wing. He said his observers did not like this--especially when he lost one of his gloves that went through the prop, destroyed it, and caused such a vibration he barely got back in his seat to kill the engine and glide down to a landing. His attitude: "The way our observers and pilots used to climb round the capacious nacelle was most amusing." In our hindsight and age (at least mine, I'm 49) it can seem nuts, as does all combat in general, but to the 18-22 year old kids at the time who volunteered, it's the way things were.

 

Regardless, I'm not saying you are "wrong" for feeling the way you do, because I agree with you: I wouldn't want to be an FE2b gunner, either. Just that relentless wind would be awful for me.

[Hauksbee 103]

 So, falling out could happen but the chances of that paled in comparison to wounding or death by gunshot wounds, avgas immolation, and trauma associated with an airplane crash.

Jim, I bow to your relentless logic, but it wouldn't make me feel one bit better if I were to be plunked down in the gunners seat tomorrow. Your case gets even stronger when I reflect on some of the crazy things I did in my twenties.

[von Baur 54]

...it wouldn't make me feel one bit better if I were to be plunked down in the gunners seat tomorrow.

 

Sign me up!!!

 

signed:

60 and still crazy.

[Hauksbee 103]

A deal! How about I pilot and you shoot?