Downing the infamous Red Baron

[K225]

Great War air hero found no joy in downing infamous Red Baron

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Dave+Brown ... story.html

[Dan Jones]

Brown never claimed to have shot down the Triplane, only to have shot at him to drive him off of May. I think the shoot down claim was a product of the Air Force media people. The good Baron was most likely a victim of Aussie groundfire.

The media claim about Brown being advised to "pack a rod" after the Nazis came to power sounds like typical media "tripe".

(Pun intended.)

Interestingly, Captain Brown has no known grave. His family disinterred him some years ago from the Aurora, Ontario cemetery and there is no official record of where they took him.

Dan

[Fleet16b]

I try hard not to get into this can of worms
but am sick of people rewriting history or inventing conspiracy theories.
Brown submitted a combat report and claimed that the aircraft went down after firing on it.
He was an experienced combat pilot and would have been able to judge whether or not his actions resulted in the shoot down.
I have heard some say he was bullied into submitting a report but there is no evidence to substantiate this anywhere.
As for the medical reports there are a few and not all come to the same conclusions.
Aircraft twist and turn climb and dive very erratically and very quickly. So who can really say from where the bullet was fired.
Another pilot witnessed the dogfight and May also felt that Brown got him. And May was certainly paying attention at the time
And yes each gunner that claims to have shot him down also has a witness or two.
Everyone wanted to be the one . Claims started popping up like wild fire

Brown had plenty of opportunities to deny or even say he was not sure.
He didn't because he was sure.
He also never tried to capitalize on the incident either.

Brown would not discuss the incident postwar . Could you blame him.
First off he killed a man. It was not something that one would openly discuss or be proud of and most WW1 veterans declined to discuss such things.
His immediate feelings right after about killing him are well documented and he would not have had those feelings or let those feeling be known if he did not feel he shot him down.


The info at the time says Brown got him but ofcourse historians love to rewrite history

Brown didn't kill Richtofen
Billy Bishop faked his VC incident
FDR and Churhill knew the Japanese were coming to Pearl and kept quiet
Multiple Kennedy shooters
911 was an inside job

One bulls%t theory after another

[K225]

The part I found interesting was the comment:
When Brown returned to base he filled out a combat report that said his attack on the red plane was “indecisive.”
Also the quote from Brown's brother that Roys's comment when asked always was “God, I hope not.” shows he probably was not sure himself.

[andyman64]

*Edited by WIXMOD-Baker to remove ill-informed and incendiary comment.*

[DaveM2]

[TROJANII]

Ah, gotta let the little people have a hero now and then .....

[Fleet16b]

The part I found interesting was the comment:
When Brown returned to base he filled out a combat report that said his attack on the red plane was “indecisive.”
Also the quote from Brown's brother that Roys's comment when asked always was “God, I hope not.” shows he probably was not sure himself.

K225
Go here, http://www.constable.ca/caah/brown.htm to view the actual combat report
Nowhere does he say he was indecisive. He claims a kill .
Also are here correspondence home and here he claims he shot him down also.

[Fleet16b]

Sorry double post

[Pogo]

Ah, gotta let the little people have a hero now and then .....

Okay, what on Earth were those last few responses supposed to mean?

[bombadier29]

Ah, gotta let the little people have a hero now and then .....

Okay, what on Earth were those last few responses supposed to mean?

It appears to be an attempt at humor, American vs Canadian, based off this following post. I think he's calling the Canadians the little people. *Edited by WIXMOD-Baker to remove reference to another poster's deleted comment.*

*Edited by WIXMOD-Baker to remove ill-informed and incendiary comment.*

[Dan Jones]

I don't think anyone's trying to rewrite history here but it's certainly a contentious issue, I'll grant you that. From what I've read about it (and I'm far from being an expert on the subject) there's more evidence to support the claims of the Aussie ground gunners - at least in my opinion. Without solid ballistic evidence (which is beyond long gone) there never will be definitive proof. I used to share your opinion but I'm afraid I don't anymore.

Dan

[Fleet16b]

From what I've read about it (and I'm far from being an expert on the subject) there's more evidence to support the claims of the Aussie ground gunners - at least in my opinion.

There is more evidence because there were more people on the ground than in the air
However each gun team on the ground plus a few rifle men all made claims so in reality it was not one large group claiming one gunner got him but a few groups all claiming different versions
T hose claims were no stronger than the three pilots involved in the dogfight.

[APG85]

I always thought that the book Who killed The Red Baron by P.J. Carisella was a fascinating and thoroughly researched book on the subject and he came to the conclusion that Australian ground gunners got him...

[Fleet16b]

I always thought that the book Who killed The Red Baron by P.J. Carisella was a fascinating and thoroughly researched book on the subject and he came to the conclusion that Australian ground gunners got him...

The book was written in 1969 and there has been new evidence since then.
Here is a modern review of the book.

"Carisella recounts the events of that day meticulously and with painstaking detail that merit the meaning of history and research. His conclusion, however, bears question. His final argument, is that the credit to shooting down the Baron is to go to Sgt. C.B. Popkin and Gunner R.F. Weston, two Australian groundsmen. It is here in that the reviewer disagrees. The evidence provided by Carisella must be examined in light of more recent material unearthed by aviation historians and buffs alike (Carisella's book first appeared in 1969). Upon reading the substantial accounts of Australians that witnessed the event, faults begin to creep up. The accounts wildly contradict each other, and a number of "witnesses" even went so far as to claim that there were only two planes involved in the incident, when in fact there were three!

Accounts of post-mortem examinations of Richthofen's shattered body also conflict. Some claim that evidence points toward Brown, seeming that the point of entry was almost in line with the point of exit. Others contradict this, claiming that the point of entry was below the exit wound (pointing to the Aussies).

It is useless (and because of space limitations) to point out all the conflicting explanations. In is in this reviewer's opinion (who himself recently completed extensive research for a term paper on the topic) that the fateful shot was fired by the Canadian, Capt. Brown, although the theory of Australian ground gunners should not be ruled out entirely.

Carisella and Ryan's book offers tremendous perspective into the controversy, among others, but sadly, it is currently out-of-print. These two historians deserve the credit for ambitiously and ruthlessly pursuing such a controversial subject that inevitably contributed to the ever-growing legend of Manfred von Richthofen and his exploits. Who precisely killed him is for the reader to decide for themselves. Most probably Brown, but until the unlikely event in which physical evidence will somehow be acquired (unlikely in that Richthofen's Fokker was literally taken apart by souvenir hunters and the skeletal remains tossed into a shell-crater where it was inevitably left to disintegrate), only then will the dusts of controversy finally settle over the death of the greatest fighter pilot of that war.