New evidence has shown that Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen was not shot down by captain Brown of the RCAF. Captain Brown never got closer than two hundred metres from the baron's plane and had him in sight for less than ten seconds. Besides, Manfred died when a single 0,303 calibre bullet pierce him by the side and terribly damaging his vital organs. With such a wound —made from the side, therefore it could not have been made by captain Brown's Sopwith 'Pup' which was behind the red triplane— the baron would have lost conscience in seconds, but he managed to fly for two more minutes and make turns before he crashed. The evidence is conclusive. It was a very lucky shot made by some Australian infantry soldiers, supossedly, some private Evans.
Freddie, There was a progamme about this on British tv a few months ago. They did computer sims of Brown's flight, and recreated the ground fire using lasers aimed at a light aircraft by a shooting champion, and deduced that one of the Aussie lewis gunners hit Richtofen. Can't remember the guy's name, but I think it was the one who died in the mid 20s. Regards, Gordon
Brown was flying a Sopwith Camel not a Pup. The Pup was phased out in the 1916-1917 time frame. I think Brown got credit because he was an officer and also the first person to lay claim on the kill. An enlisted foot soldier would have still been out in the mud and would not have been "good press" at the time to have been the one to kill the Barron.
That's precisely the telly programme I watched this Monday, but in Discovery Channel. But the names seemed very familiar to me... Evans and Brown... does it have to do anything with this forum?
Who shot down the Red Baron, the truth is we will never know. The major problem is the bullet, it was a standard .303. The trouble with this is that every single gun that fired at him from both ground and air used this type of bullet, and there were dozens of people firing at him, from Vickers MG's, Lewis guns, and even single shots from the rifles of ordinary soldiers in the trenches . Even the direction of the bullet wound is not conclusive, unless we knew the exact position of both aircraft in relation to each other when the fatal shot hit ( which we don't), did Brown after diving down take up position just under von Richtofen's tail and fire from there and what was the distance? My personal view is that based on the balance of probability, is that the fatal shot did come from the ground. However there is no way I can rule out that the shot came from Roy Brown's guns. But in truth the man most responsible for the death of von Richtofen, was von Richtofen himself. He made two major mistakes that an expert ace should never have done. Firstly he followed his victim down to almost ground level, something you should never do, the higher you are, the safer you are. Secondly he followed the enemy aircraft over its own lines at low level, stupidity itself.
No, he didn't. After Brown was on Richthofen's tail for ten seconds he fired at a range of more than 200 metres, then he turned right and went back to combat. After that, the Baron exposed his right flank ONLY once to ground fire; to private Evan's AA Vickers machine gun, which is at the same time, the closest AA poistion to where he finally crashed. And due to the nature of his wound, it's not probable that he had been able to remains conscious for more than a few seconds. But still, the facts are not conclusive enough to determine it. Perhaps we'll never know. [ 28. January 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]
The problem I have in this so-called "new evidence" found is that accdording to the Autopsy, the wound was more elongated than it would have been if the bullet had gone straight in. OK, I have had and fired--three Lee-Enfield .303's. I have fired them up to ranges of 150 yards--hitting the target but, none the less--the rounds went in where I aimed--the bullet itself never tumbled--as in a large calibre rifle firing a smaller calibre round. When that happens--you get tumbling. Now, with all the vibrating of Captn Browns Sopwith, plus wind resistance, engine vibrations etc, I can see that those things combined--could very well have cause enough distortion in order to make the round tumble. The reason it could have been possible that Richthoffen was only hit by one round could have been because of the roughness of the Spowiths flight. I fully agree that we will most likely never know the exact truth. Just my opinion though, that I will not rule out Captn Browns contribution to The Red Barons ultimate demise.
This is precisely what proves that capt. Brown did NOT shoot down the Red Baron. The bullet hit Von Richthofen by the side and Brown was shooting from behind at 200+ plus and for only 10 seconds. The Red Baron was hot down by one 0,303 calibre bullet fired from the ground.
Fried, nothing has been proven as fact that the Baron was shot down by rifle or MG-fire from the ground. The part about the tumbling round makes more sense if the round came from a shot fired from a moving object with much wind resistance and also vibrations from its engine. One shot from a MG that hits a body does not mean that there were not many more hits on the aircraft itsself. When they were talking about Nr of hits-bulletholes--they were only talking about the Nr of bulletholes (hits) on the Barons body--not his aircraft.
If you want to read up on the Barons death theories a good place to look is ; http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/index.php
The fact is that the Baron DIDt die from wounds caused by his aeroplane crashing after being shot down, but by a 0,303 bullet which hit the Baron himself from the right side and from the ground, less than 30 seconds before the plane crashed.
F, there has not been enough positive proof for me to believe that the the fatal wound was indeed from ground fire. When a round is fired from its appropriate weapon--they do not have a habit of tumbling as it would had the smaller round been fired from a larger calibre weapon.
Who fired the fatla 0,303 bullet? Maybe private Evans, but we'll never know that for sure. What we know for sure was that it couldn't have come from Brown's Sopwith. Carl, if some one is shooting at you from behind, how can you be killed by a bullet from the sides in an ascending angle? Besides, Brown withdrew from combat more than one and a half minute before the Baron crashed. And by the nature of the wound, it is impossible that the Baron could have flown 90 seconds more, manœuvre a little, crashing and still being alive when Australian medics found him. That kind of wound which destroyed the two lungs, the heart, the liver and stomach certainly made him unconscious after a few seconds. Who shot him down? We'll never know for sure. But captain Brown didn't.
"How can one be killed from the side if the bullet was fired from behind?" Easy. Place yourself in The Barons shoes. If you heard firing from somewhere--you would obviously twist around for a look see and if he did that, its quite possible he twisted around anough to get shot at that angle. Also, who said the fatal shot had to be fired directly from behind? If the Baron was being chased, he would have also been attempting to evade the one who is chasing him would he not? In that case--he would be manouvering his Fokker all over the place to make it a more difficult target to hit. The fatal bullet could have been during one of his manouvers. Like I say, there is not enough evidence provided and also beyond a reasonable doubt, that can make me think that being killed by Roy Brown was never a possibility.
No, Carl. The bullet hit the Baron in his right side's low ribs and went out through his left pecs, right besides his nipple, which means that the bullet had an ascendent angle. Unless you think that this bullet was one like Lee Harvey Oswald's on November 22nd 1963, then yeah... Roy Brown shot down the Baron... [ 04. February 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]
Gday Guys, My first post and I dont mean to be contiversial but, I believed that it was conclusivly proven either during or soon after WW1 that von Richtofen was killed but machine gun fire from the ground. CEW Bean who wrote the Official Australian Histories had a substatial appendix in Vol V of The AIF in France and it appears that credit was given to Sgt CB Popkin, 24 Aust MG Btty b Nth Sydney 20 Sept 1890. It also stated it may have been another Lewis Gunner but was definatly from the ground. Good to see that Discovery Channel could prove the same 80+ years later.
I've been meaning to post a similiar topic guys for months now. There was an article in a paper here that stated that the Baron did not actually die in mid-air or on crash-landing but was in fact bayoneted by Australian soldiers rushing to the plane. This was revealed by a grandson of a soldier at the ene who witnessed the event, coming from a diary kept by that man's grandfather...
Not to worry about being controversial Ali, IM as controverial as they come. Ryan, THAT one is new to me. I have never heard it mentioned that the Red baron could have been bayoneted Ahhh, just another thing to be added to all the controversy.