There have been many books and articles
published since then on the subject of who was responsible for
shooting down von Richthofen. Most authors agree that it was
an Australian, but disagree as to his identity, however Markham,
(2) as late as 1993, did not consider that any Australian was
responsible and wrote an article re-attributing the death of
von Richthofen to Captain Brown.
This present paper will refer in particular
to two books. DaleTitler (3) published a book agreeing that
Australian machine gunners were responsible but considered that
Gunner Robert Buie, firing a Lewis gun, shot down the German
triplane. Carisella and Ryan (4) disagreed with Titler, and
supported Beans opinion that it was Sergeant Popkin who
was responsible.
Although the various authors have
drawn different conclusions about who was responsible for Richthofens
death, it is apparent that all previous accounts of the postmortem
examinations made on Manfred von Richthofen have been taken
from Beans account in Volume V of his Official History.
It must be emphasised that Bean did not quote the reports in
their entirety but left out some of the original text of the
reports. The original complete reports are in the Richthofen
section of the Bean Papers (the Bean Papers) held in the research
section of the Australian War Memorial (AWM) in Canberra (5)
and a consideration of these throws important new light on the
controversy. There is also an unpublished letter from Popkin
to Bean in the papers, clarifying an original newspaper report
about Popkin that has been used by Titler and Carisella and
Ryan in their books and by Markham in his article.
Using these primary sources in the Australian
War Memorial, wherever possible, a critical analysis of the
postmortem examination and a reconstruction of the probable
events of 21 April 1918 has been made.
The Postmortem Examination The details of
the postmortem examinations of von Richthofens body are
more than a little confused. Referring to the contradictory
medical examinations made on the body of von Richthofen, Newton
(6), in 1986, wrote:
The different conclusions reached in the
two medical reports were to start a controversy which, to date,
has never been unquestionably resolved. Who fired the fatal
shot? Did it come from the air or the ground? However a careful
assessment of the documents in the Bean Papers seems to clarify
the confusion. It is accepted that Manfred von Richthofen was
flying an all red Fokker triplane when he crashed in the Somme
Valley near Corbie on the 21 April 1918. His body was taken
to a hangar belonging to the No. 3 Squadron, Australian Flying
Corps at Poulainville, where an examination of the body was
held. The body was washed by an orderly and the first superficial
postmortem examination was made by a panel of doctors. According
to Bean (7), the panel consisted of Colonel T Sinclair, consulting
surgeon to the Fourth army, Captain G C Graham, RAMC and Lieutenant
G E Downs, RAMC, attached to the Air Force. Newton, however,
refers to the presence also of Colonel J A Dixon, consulting
physician to the British Fourth Army.
Colonel Sinclairs report is in the
Richthofen file of the Bean papers at the AWM and is as follows:
Copy extract from A.H.File No. 21/13/506
In the Field 22nd April 1918 We have made a surface examination
of Captain Baron von Richthofen and find that there are only
the entrance and exit wounds of one rifle bullet on the trunk.
The entrance wound is on the right side about the level of the
ninth-rib, which is fractured, just in front of the posterior
axillary line. The bullet appears to have passed obliquely backwards
through the chest striking the spinal column , from which it
glanced in a forward direction and issued on the left side of
the chest, at a level about two inches higher than its entrance
on the right and about in the anterior axillary line. There
was also a compound fracture of the lower jaw on the left side,
apparently not caused by a missile - and also some minor bruises
of the head and face.
The body was not opened - these facts were
ascertained by probing from the surface wounds.
(Sgd) Thomas Sinclair Colonel AMS Consulting
surgeon IV Army BEF
According to Sinclair, therefore, assuming
that von Richthofen was sitting straight in his cockpit and
the aeroplane was in level flight, the bullet must have struck
him from the right side, was fired from an angle that was slightly
in front of the body and was fired from below. Captain Graham
and Lieutenant Downs submitted a separate report on von Richthofen's
death, a copy of this was also in the Bean papers at the AWM:
We are agreed that the situation of the
entrance and exit wounds are such that they could have not have
been caused by fire from the ground.
"Copy extract from AH File No. 21/13/506
We examined the body of Captain Baron von Richthofen on the
evening of the 21st instant. We found that he had one entrance
and one exit wound caused by the same bullet. The entrance wound
was situated on the right side of the chest in the posterior
folf (sic) of the armpit; the exit wound was situated at a slightly
higher level near the front of the chest , the point of exit
being about half inch below the right (sic) nipple and about
three-quarter of an inch external to it. From the nature of
the exit wound we think that the bullet passed straight through
the chest from right to left, and also slightly forward . Had
the bullet been deflected from the spine the exit wound would
have been much larger.
The gun firing this bullet must have been
situated in the same plane as the long axis of the German machine
and fired from the right and slightly behind the right of Captain
von Richthofen.
Sgd G. C. Graham Capt. RAMC MO i/c 22nd
Wing RAF Sngd G. E. Downs Lieut. RAMC. In the Field 22/4/18
Graham and Downs referred to the exit wound
being on the right side; Bean made a note that this is likely
to be in error. If the exit wound was on the right side, it
is unlikely that such a wound would have been mortal and it
is generally accepted that Graham and Downs had made a mistake.
However there still remains the last paragraph of their report
attributing the fatal bullet to a shot from the air, not the
ground. If, as they considered, the bullet had not been deflected
by the vertebral column, then the track of the bullet must have
been laterally from below and behind the midline. However the
only way that their statement that: "The gun firing this
bullet must have been situated in the same plane as the long
axis of the German machine" could be correct would be if
von Richthofen had been twisting his trunk almost 90 degrees
to the right and looking sideways or backwards when he was struck.
According to Newton, a Medical Board consisting
of Colonel Barber, Major C. L Chapman, Australian Medical Corps,
Major D Blake and Captain E G Knox of No 3 Squadron , AFC, examined
the body a second time. This must be the inquiry under the presidentship
of the Director-General of the Australian Army and Air Force
Medical Services (Colonel Barber) referred to by Titler but
Titlers account is at variance with that of Newton when
he stated that Colonel Nixon, Colonel Sinclair and Major C L
Chapman were the medical officers present.
There is no record of any report made by
this Medical Board in the Bean Papers. However, in 1935, Colonel
Barber wrote to Bean and this letter is now quoted in its entirety,
apparently for the first time. The underlining is original:
Oct 23 1935 My dear Bean, With reference
to your letter of October 14th. asking for information. I was
inspecting this Air Force Unit and found the medical orderly
washing Richthofen's body so I made an examination. There were
only two bullet wounds, one of entry, one of exit of a bullet
that had evidently passed through the chest and the heart. There
was no wound of the head but there was considerable bruising
over the right jaw which may have been fractured. The orderly
told me that the consulting surgeon of the Army had made a post-mortem
in the morning and I asked how he did it as there was no evidence.
The orderly told me that the cons. surgeon used a bit of fencing
wire which he had pushed along the track of the wound through
over the heart. I used the same bit of wire for the same purpose
so you see the medical examination was not a thorough one and
not a post mortem exam in the ordinary sense of the term. The
bullet hole in the side of the plane coincided with the wound
through the chest and I am sure he was shot from below while
banking.
I sent a full report to General Birdwood
at Australian Corps and I have often wondered what became of
it.
With kind regards, Yrs sincerely George
W. Barber
Colonel Barber enclosed a diagram of the
bullet wounds on the body with his letter. In this he clearly
showed the entrance wound in the left posterior axillary line
at about the level of the ninth rib, and drew a cross over the
right chest, internal to the nipple on the AP view. Under the
diagram he wrote:
"Richthofen approximate sites of exit
and entry of bullet. I forget now which was which but think
the site of entry was the one in the back. G. W. B."
(This diagram, however, is at slight variance
with the other medical reports, quoted above, as both agree
that the exit wound is external to the nipple. ) Barbers
letter clarifies the probe used by Sinclair; a surgical probe
is a rigid piece of metal with a smooth rounded bulbous tip
that is designed to avoid making false passages in the tissues.
A piece of fence wire is flexible and has a cut
end, this would certainly not have been rounded and would have
been prone to catch in the tissues, particularly the light air
filled tissues of the lung. Barbers letter, therefore,
casts profound doubt on the accuracy of Sinclairs report.
It would have been possible to have used such a probe to examine
the exit wound and determine that the bullet track involved
the heart, but it would have been quite impossible to determine
the track of the bullet to the vertebral column by using such
a probe from the entrance wound
Other difficulties in Sinclairs report
that the bullet was deflected by the vertebral column have been
carefully addressed by ODwyer in 1969 (8). Dwyer sought
medical opinions on the extreme difficulty in probing lung tissue.
The elastic lungs would collapse as soon as air enters the pleural
cavity (the space between the lungs and the chest wall), and
it would be impossible for a probe to detect any perforation
of the lungs made by a bullet.
EYEWITNESS REPORTS OF 21 APRIL 1918. Bean's
quoted reports are taken from official documents available in
the Bean Papers or are from correspondence with the protagonists.
Titler accepted many of Bean's quotations but also corresponded
directly with Gunner Buie and Carisella and Ryan also corresponded
directly with many of their witnesses.
There are several unpublished, or only partly
published documents, in the Bean Papers, these have either been
omitted or only partly quoted in Volume V of the Official History,
and the originals of these documents cast new light of the events
of that day. From the Bean Papers, and the Carisella accounts,
it is now possible to advance the following description of what
actually happened.
There is no doubt that von Richthofen followed
a Sopwith Camel, flown by a relatively novice Canadian pilot,
Lt Wilfred May, down from a dogfight that occurred when two
British photographic reconnaissance R.E. 8 aircraft were attacked
by von Richthofens Jasta west of Hamel. Carisella and
Ryan describe the attack in detail quoting from a letter to
the authors from Lieutenant Banks, (10) the observer and gunner
aboard the second R. E. 8. The presence of the German triplanes
was seen by a formation of eight Sopwith Camels, led by Captain
A Roy Brown, DSC, a Canadian flying with the newly formed Royal
Air Force.
Lieutenant May, who had been told by Brown
that he should observe any action, but should run for home if
attacked, was seen by von Richthofen and pursued. According
to his instructions May dived away and flew low over the Australian
lines, flying down the valley of the Somme, closely pursued
by Richthofen. Captain Brown saw the chase and dived from behind
on von Richthofens triplane at about 11 AM.
Brown's combat report, written after his
return to Bertangles airfield, is partly quoted in Bean but
fully quoted in Carisella and Ryan (11). According to them,
Brown wrote:
At 10:35 A. M. I observed two Albatross
burst into flames and crash. Dived on large formation of fifteen
to twenty Albatross scouts D. V.s and Fokker triplanes,
two of which got on my tail and I came out. Went back again
and dived on pure red triplane which was firing on Lt. May.
I got a long burst into him and he went down vertical and was
observed to crash by Lieutenant Mellersh and Lieutenant May.
I fired on two more but did not get them."
Carisella refers to a five part article
entitled "My Fight with Richthofen" which was published
in the late 1920s and attributed to Brown. Brown was quoted
as having said:
I was in a perfect position above and behind.
... neither plane, (Richthofen or May) was aware of me ... I
had dived until the red snout of my Camel pointed fair at his
tail. My thumbs pressed the triggers. Bullets ripped into his
elevator and tail planes. The flaming tracers showed me where
they hit. A little short! Gently I pulled back on the stick.
The nose of the Camel rose ever so slightly. Easy now, easy.
The stream of bullets tore along the body of the all-red tripe.
Its occupant turned and looked back. I had a flash of his eyes
behind the goggles. Then he crumpled - sagged In the cockpit
... Richthofen was dead. The triplane staggered, wobbled, stalled,
flung over on its nose and went down. The reserve trenches of
the Australian infantry was (sic) not more than 200 feet below.
It was a quick descent. May saw it. I saw it as I swung over.
And Mellersh saw it."
Carisella and Ryan are disparaging about
this article and stated that Brown was not the author. In fact
they stated that it was: "Dramatic copy but obviously so
much humbug. Brown was not a professional writer; the above
report is written in the colourful slick manner of the hackwriter
of the period."
There is a reference in the Bean Papers
to this article. Bean wrote to Brown in Canada on the 14 October,
1935 drawing attention to Richthofen flying for a considerable
distance and still firing at May, "according to an article
in a newspaper, the Chicago Sunday Tribune of 22
April 1928".
Brown replied in a letter of 7 November
1935 that he had never read the account and wrote: "It
is impossible for me to state how accurate the article had been"
and referred Bean to the Official History of the RAF.
Although Bean had researched, and corresponded,
widely in preparing his appendix on Richthofen, there is very
little supportive evidence for Browns report in the Bean
Papers. Indeed there is only one witness who suggests that Captain
Brown shot down the red Fokker triplane, and even this is an
indirect statement. 2nd Lt Mellor, RFC was quoted in the Melbourne
Herald newspaper of 26 February 1930 and the clipping is in
the Bean papers:
...Captain Brown seeing Mays predicament,
followed the red Fokker and closing up to a range of about 100
yards, fired a long burst from both guns. I could see his tracer
hitting the cockpit of the Fokker. The German machine zoomed,
banked steeply and obviously crippled glided down to land between
the Allied and German lines. He landed under control so the
machine was not damaged.... The Australian Lewis gunners certainly
hit the machine but their bullets hit about two inches behind
the pilots seat."
The only reference to 2nd Lt Mellor in the
voluminous literature on the death of von Richthofen is a footnote
to Beans Official History (12) . Bean wrote:
A Lieutenant Mellor wrote to the Melbourne
Herald on 26th February 1930, giving as an officer of No. 200
Squadron a similar account. Efforts to confirm his account by
reference to the Squadrons records in London have, however
proved fruitless despite a search kindly made by the authorities
there."
Lieutenant Mellersh, who was flying with
Brown, was a witness to the crash of the triplane but he did
not see Brown engage the Fokker. His account, printed in Titler,
describes Mellersh as having engine problems and "...I
was forced to spindive to the ground and return to our lines
at about 50 feet. Whilst so returning a bright red triplane
crashed quite close to me and in looking up I saw Captain Browns
machine." Despite Browns statement that the triplane
crashed after he had fired on it, von Richthofen did continue
to follow May down the Somme valley at a low altitude. He appeared
to be completely absorbed in his chase and, as he came within
range, he came under fire from Australian anti-aircraft machine
guns. In particular there was a Vickers heavy machine gun, under
the command of Sergeant Cedric Popkin, which was situated about
1000 yards west of the village of Vaux on the northern bank
of the Somme River, and the 53rd and 54th Batteries of Lewis
guns, on anti-aircraft pole mountings, on the eastern slope
of a shallow hill about 1000 yards east of Bonnay.
As he came to the hill, Lieutenant May,
hugging the ground contours, rose to clear the rise and flew
on in a straight line after passing it. The red triplane, still
following May, also rose to clear the hill but then came under
Lewis gun fire from the 53rd and 54th Batteries. It then performed
an Immelman turn to return back to the German lines. This aspect
of the fight was observed by Gunner George Ridgway, from Lang
Lang in Victoria, who was on top of the Heilly brick stack near
the Bray-Corbie road and who had an excellent view. Part of
Ridgways statement is in Bean, (13) the full statement,
taken by the Lang Lang correspondent of the Melbourne Herald,
after being rejected by his newspaper editor, was sent to Bean.
It is available in the Bean Papers. The full text is as follows:
He states that he was about 200 feet from
the ground. The first plane passed to the right and rapidly
began to climb. As soon as it was out of danger the machine
gunners opened out on the German. Von Richthofen, he claims,
came within 200 feet of the ground and to save himself he swerved
to the left and immediately banked at an angle of 75 degrees.
He was sitting upright in the cabin and could be seen plainly
at the controls. All this occurred within 100 yards of the Heilly
chimney stack. The first plane having reached a safe altitude,
the German plane provided an excellent target for the machine
guns who were in a circle around him at Vaux-sur-Somme, Bonney
(sic) and Corbee (sic) and thousands of rounds were fired at
him, to use Gunner Ridgway's words, "A rain of death bespattered
him."
The plane seeking frantically to escape
only rose about 500 feet when it turned over to its left, and
crashed to the ground."Gunner Ridgway, who still retains
the number plate of the machine was one of the first at the
scene. On the number plate are the words: "Militar Fluzzeug
(sic) Fokker DR. 1525/17". (14) He is emphatic that the
Baron was alive when he banked after the other planes had gone
. The nearest plane to him was at least half a mile away. He
states that there was plenty of evidence to show that Captain
Brown did not get him and hopes that the official War History
will be amended even at this late date.
A. W. Madge Lang Lang correspondent."
However, although an indirect quotation,
Ridgways reported statement is confirmed by Lieutenant
G. M. Travers MC who wrote a report that is partly quoted in
Bean (15) and is continued in the Bean Papers. Travers was observing
near 11th Brigade HQ when he heard planes approaching from the
direction of 26 central, and heard a Vickers gun firing from
the ground. He wrote:
April 1918. The first plane that came into
view was one of our own, and less than 20 paces behind him was
an enemy plane painted red. The red plane was overhauling our
plane fast and both were flying so low that they almost crashed
into trees at the top of the hill. Almost directly over the
spot where I was lying the enemy plane swerved to the right
so suddenly that it seemed almost to turn over. Our plane went
straight on, from that moment the enemy plane was quite out
of control and did a wild circle and dashed towards J.19.b.34
where it crashed. I went over with other officers and had a
look at the plane and also the driver, who was dead, a machine
gun bullet had passed from the left side of his face and near
bottom of jaw and came out just behind the right eye (16)...The
Vickers gun mentioned was the only gun firing at the time the
driver first lost control of his machine. I made enquiries and
found the gun was handled by No. 424 Sergt. Cedric Basset Popkin,
24 Australian Machine Gun Company. G. M. Travers Lieut Company
52nd Bat AIF
Further confirmation that Ridgways
story is correct also came from Lieutenant J. A. Wiltshire,
MC who wrote a letter to Bean on 9 June 1934. This is only partly
reproduced in Bean and the relevant parts of the original letter
(17) are as follows:
|