JFM

Cool photo WF2! You can see if that person's right hand held the control column the arm would be elevated a bit and expose more of the right ribs. Also, it occured to me that MvR was bundled in all that bulky flight gear (he looks awfully roly-poly in that photo of him walking to his Dr.I 127/17 on the J11 flightline) and thus his body would not not have been flush against the rear of the seat.

WF2, MvR was hit on his side below the right armpit, the entry wound being at his ninth rib (the exit wound was two inches higher than the entrance wound, between the fifth and six ribs and located "about half an inch below and three quarters of an inch external" to the left nipple), so the bullet passed in front of where the seat curves downward.

425/17 went through two cross changes in-field. First, from the standard iron cross version with which it had been produced to the "thick" (25cm wide) Balkenkreuze. Next, from this thick cross to the 15cm wide narrow cross with which the plane was captured.

Great stuff, gents! Loved it all. I agree that destroying two-seats obs planes was strategically more valuable than destroying scouts, although of course any enemy plane is fair game. RFC sent two-seaters over the lines with or without escorts, so if the Germans had eventually shot down all the escorting scouts the two seaters would have still gone over. The photographs they took were too important and necessary for intelligence to assess current and/or plan pending ground operations. Regarding MvR's 6 July 1917 wounding, I have studied this event for years and written about it extensively. Contrary to popular belief, he was shot by neither the FE2d he attacked nor by German friendly fire from behind. This determination is based on combat reports, eyewitness accounts (air and ground), photographic evidence and gunshot wound ballistics. So MvR wasn't careless; the bullet came from a blindspot, and charging the FE2d head-on was well within his normal operating methodology. He was perhaps a bit careless when he had his engine and fuel tanks damaged in March 1917, precipitating his forced landing. A bit of target fixation, no doubt. Yes, von Baur, "overrated coward" referenced several claims of this that I've debated elsewhere. Normally this is claimed because MvR shot down two seaters. Interestingly, other men who also shot down many two seaters are not referred to as cowards or "unworthy," as is Richthofen. Men such as McCudden, Voss (as Godzilla mentioned), Boelcke, Immelmann, Ball, Hawker, Lufberry, McElroy, etc.--all have official tallies that contain at least 50% two-seaters. When's the last time you saw McCudden being referred to derogatorily (as is MvR) because most of his engagements (some 75%) were not straight out of the Great Waldo Pepper? I know when: never. On the contrary, McCudden is praised for it. Even for guys who shot down mostly scouts, is that reason to grant them more worth? Who flew these scouts they shot down? The majority of pilots were not aces, after all. Look at Mannock. For some of his scout victories he shot down pilots far less experienced than he. Just a quick trawl through the official lists and: (Mannock's) 20th: Ltn Vortmann, Jasta B, no victories, KiA 23rd: Ltn Derlin, Jasta 20, no victories, KiA 24th: Ltn Aeckerle, Jasta 47, no victories, KiA 35th: Vzfw Schorn, Jasta 16, one victory, KiA 45th: Ltn Dunkelburg, Jasta 58, no victories, KiA (possible ID) Does butchering neophytes make Mannock a better pilot just because their planes were scouts and not two seaters? Does it reflect greater credit upon the man? Not by the yardsticks of many who measure MvR's similar stats; a dichotomy I debate. War isn't about "fair." Just because a guy shoots down mostly scouts or mostly two-seaters doesn't mean that based on that he's better than guys shooting down more of the opposite kind--especially when you consider that the preferred and sought after method of victory employed gaining an enemy unseen from behind and then shooting him at close (i.e., can't miss) range. What's it matter if the guy with the bullet through the back of the head was flying a scout or a two-seater? Anything that entered the arena with crosses or cockades painted on it was a worthy target.

Great stuff, von Baur! I appreciate your time. Yes, I assure you I know what I'm saying. And we are in agreement on many points. However, based on ca. 14 years of observation I have found over and over that many do not consider MvR the best. Fair enough. However, many of these people who say Voss was better than MvR then go on to compare various aspects of Voss's career with Richthofen's in an obvious attempt to lend further credence to Voss. I say, why? I thought Manfred was an "overrated coward"(as I've read claimed)? In my eyes, crystal ball suppositions regarding what MvR would have done if he were Voss or what Voss would have done had he lived beyond 23 September do nothing but detract from Voss's accomplishments that ought to and can stand on their own. I guess it's fun to debate the "what ifs" from time to time but too often these debates have been used as psuedo-evidence. This is a historical disservice. I can't debate supposition; anyone can spin anything with it. "Voss would have outscored MvR had he lived" assumes a whole host of things and excludes a whole host of other things to support that supposition. To counter that-which-never-happened assumes still more things. To me, it becomes as silly as debating politics that might happen "if." Again, I suggest Voss would have died had he fought during Bloody April. That supposition holds just as much water as claiming he would have bested MvR's record had he lived beyond 23 September. Actually, come to think of it, it holds more water--Voss did die, and he did not best MvR's record. LOL You can see the foolishness of it all... I respectfully disagree Hawker outflew Manfred. For all his aerobatics, etc., they didn't elude MvR at all. Manfred just waited for that to end and then went after him and shot him down. You must remember that for most of the MvR/Hawker encounter, Hawker was on the defensive. At no time was he able to even get a shot off (and don't be fooled by the poor translations that claim he did--he did not). So, for all that stunting, what did it get him? 1) Unable to attain firing position and 2) unable to evade Richthofen. Richthofen did both: he evaded Hawker during their circling, and then gained firing position and shot him down. To me, these facts demonstrate unquestionably that Richthofen outflew Hawker. As a general aside, IMO too much is made of Manfred's comment he shot down his first twenty while still having difficulties flying. He'd been a pilot for 9 months before he shot down his first plane with Jasta 2, having flown numerous combat sorties without operational accident, including while flying the tricky LFG Roland C.II Walfisch. He even flew through ("under" is more accurate) a thunderstorm and survived; despite his astoundingly poor judgment to takeoff as that storm approached, it takes more than luck to get through one of those. His first twenty were shot down as he simultaneously transitioned from two seaters to the Albatros D.I--all his "training flights" on that machine were flown in combat--and it's clear to me this initial transition is the "difficulty" to which he referred in his air combat operations manual. I concede I cannot prove this. Regardless, I do know that by the time MvR wrote this manual (ca. March 1918) any "difficulties" were over, as the manual says "when I still had the greatest difficulties;" had, i.e., past tense. Nobody ever considers this. Post-war, from Ernst Udet: ‘The two of us had been fighting it out with a group of English single-seaters above the Somme crater field. Richthofen was pursuing one of the enemy. He was flying close behind and apparently had his guns lined up. At any moment I expected to see the Englishman begin to smoke. Instead, Richthofen suddenly abandoned the chase and turning sharply, flew back toward our lines, going rapidly lower as he went. ‘It was immediately clear to me that something had gone radically wrong with his motor or else his guns were jammed. I looked down and saw that the ground below us was nothing but a mass of jagged craters. It seemed an impossible area in which to hope to make a safe landing. Yet Richthofen was still going down. ‘All at once he turned sharply into the wind, banked, dropped, straightened out and disappeared from view behind a low ridge. When I got over him, I found that he had made a perfect landing on a 20 meter long bit of level ground. It was the only landing possibility within an area of more than a square mile and so small at that, that only a miracle-man could have successfully negotiated it. ‘Richthofen immediately jumped out of his machine and tied a white handkerchief around his propeller. At the same time, waving to me, he pointed at it. I gathered from this that he had been forced to land on account of a damaged prop and furthermore, that he wanted to have repairs made without delay. I flew back to our base and ordered two mechanics to move up quickly with a new prop. In exactly two hours, Richthofen flew back scowling with his triplane. ‘We learned then that one of the Englishmen had got in a hit which put the turning [synchronization] gear of the baron's machine gun out of commission in such a way that when Richthofen had attempted to use it, he had shot away a piece of his own propeller. The increased oscillation of his motor had indicated to his alert mind what had happened. He didn't know at what moment his propeller might crack up entirely, spelling an inevitable crash. In a flash, his eye had swept over the crater strewn field. He had landed on the one spot where a landing might be possible. With uncanny cool-headedness he had decided to risk the landing rather than take a chance on the propeller. ‘As soon as the new prop had been installed, he ordered a detachment of soldiers who had come up, to haul his machine back to the extreme edge of the area he had landed on. After that he ordered a group [of] men to hold on to each wing until given the signal to let go. Then he started his motor and gave it every drop of gas it would take. With a nod from Richthofen, the soldiers released their hold. The triplane let out a roar and literally leaped perpendicularly into the air after a run of not more than five meters. I doubt if any aviator from that day to this had ever made a more brilliant landing or a more extraordinary take-off.’ This proves nothing, of course, but it is awfully high praise from an excellent pilot about such a "poor" one.

Even after listing these impressive stats there's another speculative comparison with MvR. When will Voss stand on his own merits?

Hello: Poor Voss! He can’t be mentioned without being compared to MvR sooner or later. Always what Voss might have done as compared to what Richthofen actually did. Eventually the speculation claims that Voss would have been “the best” had he lived. Why is Voss speculation always positive? You never read someone say, “I think Voss would have been killed during Bloody April had he not been away on PLM leave,” or “I think that if Voss would have survived his fight against No. 56 he would have died two days later on the 25th.” That speculation has equal weight and equal likelihood to speculation he would have “passed MvR’s total,” yet nobody dares say anything negative against Voss, no matter how historically possible. From personal inquiries I’ve determined this is because many feel an emotional attachment to him due to his “hero’s death” fighting against overwhelming odds--ironically, a manner of death that has assured his fame. After all, take away Voss’s last fight and what do you have? A curmudgeonly loner who shot down less planes than Udet, Löwenhardt, and Jacobs—men about whom far less is discussed than Voss. Why? No odds-against-them-hero's-deaths. One would think Voss only had one flight; 23 September 1917 is the cornerstone of his career. After all, it's mostly what is written about or discussed, except maybe a few mentions of his strafing downed planes or his ridiculously exaggerated "rivalry" with MvR. Yet Adolf Ritter von Tutschek flew a Dr.I during a fight similar to Voss’s last, tangling with an estimated 16 (sixteen) Se5s. Never hear much about it though; certainly not much written about it. Why? He lived. In any event, no matter how many people don’t like it: Richthofen: 80 Everyone else: <80

Hi, O, Through the bottom wings, then up behind the interplane struts to the ailerons. All Alb D.-types had their ailerons cables routed this way, save for the D.V which had them come up in front of the cockpit and then out through the upper wing. Okay, I haven't flown in a while and those screenies make me want to take one up.

Bass for 27 years, GTR for 5. I spent my twenties in touring hard rock bands.

Hello, That last plane is a D.Va replica ("D5a 5636/17" is stenciled on the starboard forward gear strut, which falls within the second D.Va production batch, and there are no aileron cables ahead of the cockpit running up to the wing) but it's painted as a Jasta 5 D.V. Still, those photos all show the radiator handles nicely. Regarding radiators, another interesting tidbit in this NASM Albatros book is that during initial climb-out, "...the water for engine cooling heated and expanded, and the excess vented overboard from the radiator that was imbedded in the center section of the top wing. This caused vapor to stream overhead and trail behind the airplane until the excess was gone."

Yes, Olham, I'm an Albatros fanatic! I just don't have enough time to fly them and get them down to the nth degree. I expect to get more time after my current work projects wrap up (although I may sneak in a flight or two late, late tonight).

The handles were stock with the Daimler Mercedes radiators but I cannot say that every D.Va made employed that type because there were some 1600+ D.Vas produced and I've not seen photos of them all. But if it's a D.Va and the photo angle is right you normally see the handle; it is common enough to be a hallmark of the D.Va. Do you have NASM's Albatros D.Va, German Fighter of World War I? Interestingly, on page 28 it mentions the handle controlled the radiator shutters (natch). Water temperature could not exceed 70 - 75C and since there was no temp gauge the pilot had to judge temperature by engine sound (it does not describe this exactly, unfortunately). Also, the Albatros throttle was on the control column; the lever on the left side of the cockpit was the spark control handle. Regardless, I still have a devil of a time surviving in those things no matter what handles are there and/or function! They are my favorite fighter and I can't give them up.

OvS, those linked Albatros examples are D.Vs. The handle in question was associated with Daimler Mercedes airfoil radiators on the Albatros D.Va. You can see examples in Norman Franks' Albatros Aces of World War 1, pp. 42, 65, 80, 83, 85, and Greg VanWyngarden's Albatros Aces of World War 1 (Part 2), pp. 75, 76, 77, 81.

D.Va with Daimler Mercedes airfoil radiator.

Hallo! Yes, we did. That's how Manfred describes it in his autobiography, except they drove to Hénin-Liétard. There, while waiting to be picked up, is where he napped and then ate lunch as a guest of the man who drove him from the landing site. Indeed, later that day MvR flew a sortie and shot down a BE2e. Please don't apologize for your English! I know you are German, as I've read many posts, but your command of English is so superb that it never even dawned on me that you intended to write something else. So, I apologize to you.

Hello! All these subjects and more are meticulously detailed in an upcoming new book: http://www.airpowereditions.com/our-books-red-baron.html For my two cents, MvR didn't "almost die" when he made a forced landing after his fuel tanks were punctured (which, for the record, happened 6 March 1917, not 19 March). Perhaps metaphorically, but not biologically; he wasn't even injured. Afterwards, he took an hour nap, dined on oysters and champagne and then later that day shot down his 24th. Neither did he almost die after being shot 6 July 1917. Neither time was he in danger of physical expiration.

Hello! You guys have completely omitted Hawker’s target fixation with the German two seaters on 23 November—because of this he didn’t even see Jasta 2 diving down on No. 24 Squadron. Andrews did, but he couldn’t get Hawker’s attention and stayed with his leader—and got shot to hell for it. Often you’ll see this business of Hawker attacking Jasta 2 and MvR barely turning to avoid his bullets, but this is the version in Richthofen’s autobiography that was possibly subject to victory cross-contamination (by the time it was written some six months later MvR had been credited with 41 additional victories). The combat reports of Richthofen and Andrews and Saundby confirm Jasta 2 dived on and attacked No. 24 Squadron. Hawker never fired on MvR and an Albatros had been seen latching on to his tail from the beginning. So, put Hawker in a D.III and Jasta 2 in D.H.2s—being dived upon by planes you never even see coming puts you at a big disadvantage, no matter what you’re flying, wind and location be damned. And what of Hawker’s stick and rudder ability? Certainly they had eroded because of his flight prohibition resulting from being commander. According to the No. 24 Squadron combat reports and squadron record book, Hawker had sortied only 5.6 hours since 1 October and not at all since 20 October! He flew 23 November only because he filled in for a pilot who was slated to go on leave, in case something happened to him just before he left. 5.6 hours of flight time in 54 days with no hours in 34 days erodes ability, no matter who you are. Also, his last victory had been while flying a Bristol Scout in September 1915—over a year previous—and he had no D.H.2 victories. Meanwhile, Jasta 2 had been going hell-for-leather since mid-September. Without flight restrictions, Richthofen flew continually and shot down ten planes by 23 November; three more than Hawker ever shot down. It had turned into a different war for Hawker. It wasn’t 1915 anymore, chasing C-types around with a rigged Bristol. By November 1916 he wasn’t flying much and the British were facing reorganized Jastas flying new D.Is and D.IIs (Manfred’s first victory was in a D.I, not a D.II, and it was not as if he couldn’t score until he received one, that was the plane he had been assigned when he became a fighter pilot). It wasn’t Richthofen’s fault that the British hadn’t come out with the S.E.5a yet. IMO it is irrelevant that it took ca. 900 bullets to kill Hawker as he fled—a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head. Would it have been “better” if MvR killed him with the 118th bullet as Hawker chandelled? The bullets were there to be fired—as long as he got him with one of them is all that mattered, whether it was the first or the thousandth. It took the Americans several tries and dozens of bombs and torpedoes before we finally struck mortal blows on the Japanese carriers at Midway—did all those tries lessen the victory? Of course not.

I agree. The sim recognizes the kill but then can deny it. If it recognizes the kill to pop up the claim form, why have the form if it's already been recognized? I've stopped bothering with them as I've had 75% rejected. At that rate Richthofen would have had to submit 320 claims and I assure you he did not. One guy said he had 1 out of 14 claims approved flying BHaH. That rate has Richthofen submitting, what, 1,120 claims! Still, I think it's a grand idea. Perhaps an expansion of it would be to have a claims form to fill in after every mission, with an option to bypass if you didn't have any claims. It would be coded so you couldn't pencil whip claims, but it wouldn't just pop up when you shot one down. (I concede I have no idea about coding and what that entails and this request may either be impossible or ridiculously time consuming.) I've had it pop up after landing and didn't even realize I had shot one down. However, I had only tangled with one plane and obviously he went down some point after our encounter. If it weren't for the claim form, I would have had no idea I shot one down--just as it would have been. Yet I filled in the details of the only fight I had and it was actually accepted. So I'm given kills I didn't know I had and denied kills I know I had. In any event, I don't get many kills because I have precious little time to spend in my Albatros D.V, which I'm going to do now.

Pssst! Hey, Warlord! You forgot one: Time and interest permitting, of course! If you do it, be sure to have the Alb logo facing toward the spinner. Everyone has it facing the tail, but photographs show that on this plane (and an overwhelming majority of all Albatros planes) the bird "flew toward" the spinner on both sides of the rudder. Here: "D.2016/16" is my interpretation of the serial number, based on a long process I won't bore you guys with. D.2016/16 was Ltn d R Hans Hinsch's machine.

By "sometimes" you mean "all the time," don't you? Warlord, please don't think I was nitpicking your work. Great stuff! Downloaded the Albs, will be flying same over the holidays. Thank you! SH, my green horizontal stabs is speculation; could just be different reflection in the photograph. I agree, a time machine would solve many problems! Just go back to, say, 1910 and leave cameras, color film and processing chemicals. That'd give everyone four years to grasp and develop the technology, and then today we'd have color shots out the wazoo. As far as artistic license, I believe that (generally) the specific Jasta identifying colors were applied, and then beyond that there was liberal freedom. For instance, Jasta 5. By July 1917 they all (at least an overwhelming majority) had the green empennages with the red piping, but otherwise every machine was wildly individual and, in a few cases, outright ostentatious.

Hello! My meager $00.02. Wolff's March D.III and the plane with which he was photographed (D.632/17) are two different machines. According to Ferko, 632/17 was delivered to Jasta 11 19 April 1917. Ferko wrote it was later overpainted in purple, but Greg VanWyngarden has stated that by this time the Jasta 11 red overpainting was in full swing and the plane was likely overall red, as was Schäfer's, Allmenröder's, Manfred's, etc. This cannot be proven, but I agree with GvW (just stating my position, not trying to suggest my agreement adds any sort of weight to GvW's claim). I mentioned Schäfer. His black fuselage/empennage D.III was lost when he was shot down 22 April. When he was shot down and KiA 5 June by No. 20 Squadron, their Squadron Record Book states "red scout." He was with Jasta 28 by then, but certainly received a new machine while still in Jasta 11 (he had victories with Jasta 11 after his 22 April downing, prior to his assuming command of Jasta 28) that must have been painted red, and there is that fantastic photo of Schäfer standing next to a solid-color Alb. So, again, two machines. Regarding planforms, SSBucky is right that the pale green/olive green/venetian red camo was used on the first D.III production batch and later discontinued. Dan-San Abbot's research indicates the 2nd D.III production batch (D.600-649/17) had the pale/olive green only. This cannot be seen on Allmenröder's or Schäfer's or even Manfred's 3rd production D.789/17 (I don't even know of a 100% certain photo of this machine) but this two-toned camo may be seen on other Albs. So, something like below (although please understand I am NOT suggesting Wolff's plane bore this pattern, only illustrating an absence of venetian red; the Wolff photo shows a centrally located dark band that sloped left, but I have not drawn this planform): However, the Idflieg order to remove the venetian red was made 12 April and stated that "dark green and lilac should be used only." However, the second production D.III machines were ordered in February 1917. ??? Did they have advanced notice? Were they field painted post 12 April to remove the venetian? Or is the sloping band on Wolff's D.632/17 olive green flanked by pale green and venetian? (I'll run this past DSA and see what he says.) Some D.III (OAW)s used green and mauve, but it is my understanding that this didn't reach the Albatros-Johannisthal machines until the D.V, the first of which were ordered in April. WW1 colors and markings. Each "answer" comprises several more questions! Anyway, my take on D.632/17, which is based on the famous photograph: All these new skins! I have to get on the ball and download them all--especially the Albs, my favorite German machine. Thanks for the work and making them available.

Ah, um, yeah, that's the ticket... Guess I better grab them, eh? Okay, grabbed the FMs. No idea where to get the others; searching now.

Okay, after the C.IX-ing tonight I'm strapping this one on. Time to re-write history!

Did you put in the Albatros? Good God, man, at least give us the Albatros for a bit, too!

No, the horse is alive, so get back to work!