Who Killed the Red Baron?

[Sayeret]

http://www.anzacs.net/BuiePOV.gif

http://www.anzacs.net/PopkinPOV.gif

http://www.anzacs.net/who-killed-the-Red-Baron.htm

[Vivelamorte]

Damn interesting! Piloting was something very very brave in the beginning - the parachute hadn't been invented in the early days.

[aartamen]

What seriously contributed to his death was a bullet from the ground. I think it was an american bullet. Can't say for certain. Forgot. He was struck in the head. But the bullet did not penetrate the scull. Instead he recieved a concussion. A concussion sometimes has psychological ramificiation which the pilot according to witnesses exhibited in days between that wounding and death. He seemed a little bit out of his mind, unreasonable and illogical. In this condition he took to the air. And perhaps took chances that he would not have if he was healthy.

[el borracho]

Most modern accounts place the Aussie gunners with the downing of the Red Baron. Capt. Brown got the official credit probably because he was an officer, most likely for propoganda purposes they didn't want to credit grunts with killing such an icon of the enemy.

BTW, parachutes were invented at this time, but they were very cumbersome and looked down upon as cowardly by the chivalrously minded airmen.

[digrar]

Bloody Officer Canucks trying to steal our thunder, Aussie diggers got him for sure ;) .

[Ballistic]

Bloody Officer Canucks trying to steal our thunder, Aussie diggers got him for sure ;) .

Bloody oath mate !! :D

[Midav]

It's a good question and may just remain a mystery forever.

[Vivelamorte]

BTW, parachutes were invented at this time, but they were very cumbersome and looked down upon as cowardly by the chivalrously minded airmen.

Ah, right. So it was sporting to use one, eh, old chap?

[Ballistic]

It's a good question and may just remain a mystery forever.

Nah it was an Aussie.... ;)

Anzacs.net (http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anzacs.net%2Fwho-killed-the-Red-Baron.htm)

There are a few who claim the kill, but we all know the Aussie's got the shot in. :D ;) ;)

[oldsoak]

Honours even, I reckon. The Canadian put him in reach of the Aussie chaps who obliged.
;)

[b.scheller]

Stop posting this utter rubbish, it is obvious that Lord Flashheart (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/epguide/four_private.shtml) killed the red baron

Anyway it was the Canadian who did it, the Aussie was just there by accident... ;)

[Kitsune]

You are all wrong. The Red Baron is alive. His mechanic flew the plane that day.

[Adam Wilhelm]

it is obvious that Lord Flashheart (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/epguide/four_private.shtml) killed the red baron

Tsss... it was Snoopy who did´t!

http://home1.gte.net/konman/Snoopy.jpg

[noggs]

You are all wrong. The Red Baron is alive. His mechanic flew the plane that day.

Ya, I heard that somewhere, but I dont know where

[Werewolf01]

I have always felt it is more than a little bit of a snub how the British use Commonwealth troops for cannonfodder, then somehow manage to get most of the glory distributed to themselves. If it were not for South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Rhodesia (RIP, sold out by the Brits entirely) and Canada, the Brits really would be speaking German right now, regardless of the US. :-*$

[Fenna]

Well mate, that' because you're looking at it from a 21st Century perspective.

By the break out of WW1, those countries you mentioned were not fully independent as they are now. Many inhabitants of those countries in 1914 referred to Britain as the mother country. The idea of the British Empire was that the Empire was a "Greater Britain". Even in 1940 the British Commonwealth army in North Africa was referred to as a British Empire force.

So when Britain used Canadian or ANZAC troops, it was like using troops from parts of Britain itself and not how it is now in the 21st C. (The Commonwealth countries really came of age truly in WW1)

And please give an example of Britain using commonwealth troops as cannonfodder

[oldsoak]

The British were always short of manpower compared with the continent - just look at the comparitive land mass sizes - hence the need for colonial troops in both world wars. A lot of colonial troops from the white colonies were also sons of British immigrants and they volunteered because they still felt British - according to some papers I read on the ANZACS, nearly two thirds were either British or were first generation Aussies of British descent. Quite a few would have had uncles and cousins in the UK. Quite a few people in the UK thought of the colonies as being British - the idea that they were seperate self governing states with their own agendas wasnt apparent. An Australian victory, therefore was seen as a British one. Going back in time, thats one reason why the war of independence was so unpopular in Britain - Americans were seen as being related, which for the most part, they were at that time. I dont think any modern historian would fail to credit the colonial troops ( incldung Indian and African ) that fought along side the British. As for Brits getting all the glory - it depends which theatre you were in. From a commonwealth viewpoint New Guinea was a definitely Australian, Burma was British,Indian and African, NW Europe was Canadian and British ( not forgetting the RNZAF and RAAF ) - the Med was all sorts. This does not downplay the help we were given by the US or their efforts in those wars.

[oldsoak]

B*gger - its been said :oops:

[digrar]

And please give an example of Britain using commonwealth troops as cannonfodder

Any attack from the Gallipoli campaign for starters and any other charge in France where they were ordered to attack dug in MG fire, with inadequate Artillery preperation. To be fair though the Brit high command didn't treat it's own troops any better.

[Werewolf01]

I also have to say that British command in Normandy and shortly thereafter used the Canadians and the Poles as cannonfodder. Dieppe also comes to mind. I do argee that the British treat their troops little better, but it still seems to me that the Commonwealth troops got the crappy end of the stick most of the time under British command. I seem to recall reading in one of Donald Burgett's books a passage where he relates overhearing a conversation between an American officer and a British officer that went something like this:
American officer: "The job of an officer is to show the men how to fight."
British officer: "No, the job of an officer is to show the men how to die."
I believe this was in his book about the Operation Market Garden(granted, virtually every unti that participated in that fiasco was cannonfodder, especially the poor slobs in Arnhem (Brits, I know)). I remember correctly this is also the book in which he realtes a story of British troops basically walking across a field swept with German machinegun fire firing from the hip as they went and all of them being killed or wounded long before they reached German lines.
Keep in mind: I am in no way criticizing the bravery or commitment of British soldiers, I am merely making a comment that is an opinion, backed up by observation and fact, about British leadership in WWI and WWII.

[oldsoak]

Exactly - the Brits didnt treat their own troops better. The commonwealth troops were not singled out for slaughter any more than the next man. That the ANZACs often had to suffer our incompetent Generals is true - just as we did. I certainly dont see the world wars as a "UK only" show - what was then the Empire took part , and those that took part get the credit.

[oldsoak]

I disgree on the comment that the Poles or the Canadians were used as cannon fodder. The Dieppe raid was a fiasco that we can lay at the door of one Louis Mountbatten. The Canadians were simply who was availiable at the time - in fact at one point in 1940 they were the only fully equipped unit on British soil. Its very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that because the Poles and the Canadians went up against some very tough opposition ( in operation Goodwood etc ) who had very good defensive posiitons and often superior equipment that they were used as cannon fodder. The position of the UK at the time of the Normandy invasion was that it was simply approaching the end of the manpower barrell - it had troops fighting in Italy and Burma as well as Normandy. Out of necessity, any unit fighting under British command would have to engage the enemy sooner or later. The Colonel Blimp attitude of the British officer is by no means typical of the officers - a lot of the old school had been culled by then and the new crop were far more innovative and in touch with their men.