Red Baron?

[Hamburger]

As I finished watching the movie "The Red Baron" I noticed he was flying an Albatros. Personally not being a fan of the Dr.1, wouldn't it be cool to have a Red Baron Albatross?

[Oberst Hajj]

You can get his Albatross from FToys on eBay (search eBay for a better price). It is the correct scale and only needs to be modified to fit on the Wings of War flight pegs, very easy to do if you are using the Gimbal Mounts.

You can see the plane and the Gimbal Mounts in action in this photo:

[Pseudotheist]

Alternately, you can just repaint one. References for the color scheme should be easy to find.

[flash]

Imagine the "what if" scenario that he survived long enough to fly such things as the Fokker DVII - more red paint please !

PS nice pic Col.

[Attila57]

For example, look at this links for Red Baron Albatros liveries :

http://www.wwi-cookup.com/albatros/d..._DV1177-17.jpg

or this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/redbaro...ry/2567509595/

Remember that about Red Baron's fifty victories had been achievied with Albatros D II, D III or D V. on a total of 80. Only (!) seventeen with on Fokker DR.I.

But I agree: we all remember the pair Red Baron and his red triplane!

Attilio

[gregbond77]

Nice picture Keith!

[Bruce]

Ditto Greg's kudo about the photo Col. H. It wa a good one.
That's why I love the gimbals; they make the game-in-progress look even more "alive".

Most of my group take photos as the games progress, and they take time to adjust the gimbal pitch to get the most realistic looking photo.

I have not yet completely retro-fitted the gimbal to all of our 100+ aircraft, but already the guys are selecting their aircraft based on whether they have a gimbal or not rather than by aircraft specs. That's a testimony in itself for the gimbals.

[Oberst Hajj]

Thanks I need to do a little series of them showing the game off some more.

I have not yet completely retro-fitted the gimbal to all of our 100+ aircraft, but already the guys are selecting their aircraft based on whether they have a gimbal or not rather than by aircraft specs. That's a testimony in itself for the gimbals.

That's very nice to hear!

[gregbond77]

Thanks I need to do a little series of them showing the game off some more.



That's very nice to hear!

Now thats a great idea, and it didn't even involve the drinking of adult beverages!

[Hamburger]

Some questions for the Col.,
He flew mainly a DIII. Should his DIII use a modified DIII deck (K is it?) with some cards that normally wouldn't be in it? (90 deg. turns, wide slips...) Or would I show up to a game and only see a bunch of red shooting at a bunch of red? Opinions? Alternatively, I could just use Brunowski's DIII. Please help me, I am very much a n00b to WWI airplanes! I used to only like WWII, but they lacked the "personality" that so many WWI planes had. So much MORE skill was required to be an excellent pilot/ace and now there are air-air missiles and nukes, only computers do the genius involved with being a good pilot.

Well, I am rambling again (a thing I am known to do) so if you wasted your time reading this, please waste a little more helping me solve this issue.
All the Best, and happy flying/killing!
Charlie (Hamburger)

[Wolfbiter]

@Hamburger,

Alternatively, you could use a D.III or a D.Va and use some of the optional Ace rules from Nexus (the list is in the WWI files section here on the site) to reflect Richtofen's skills.

[Bedlam]

Manfred Von Richthofen doesn't actually seem to have been particularly special as a pilot, and indeed he crashed on his first flight. His success was in his discipline and tactics as a hunter and his use of the aircraft as a platform for his guns.

He was considered far less acrobatic then his brother Lothar or Werner Voss, for example, so I don't think you would need any special or extra manoever cards. Ace rules would be a good way of representing his tactical expertise.

Since the "official" Von Richthofhen DR1 mini is impossible to get, and he seems to have had at least four DR1 Triplanes, I've just ordered an extra Rahn which I will paint up as 477/17. For me that's a more interesting scheme, as it isn't all red like 425/17.

[Bartman]

You can get his Albatross from FToys on eBay (search eBay for a better price). It is the correct scale and only needs to be modified to fit on the Wings of War flight pegs, very easy to do if you are using the Gimbal Mounts.

I have several of the F-toys planes (including MvR's Alb.DIII) and agree wholeheartedly with the Col. here. The FT models fit very nicely. All that is needed is to cut the nipple off of a flight peg and super glue it to the bottom of the model and you're ready to go.

Or as the Col. mentioned, buy some of the gimbal mounts and do the same thing.

[Albert Ross]

IIRC most of the 80 victories were over pilots who never knew he was there (many of them clumsy two seaters like the BE2c). His success was due to his tactical skill at stalking the enemy and selecting the right approach, rather than flying rings around them in a dogfight. The same can be said of many famous aces in fact.

As for the movie, it sucked on ice. Nice lighting, good 'period' feel to it and of course excellent flying sequences (except the silly night scene), but the whole thing lacked a decent plot and seemed disjointed beyond recognition. Not bad acting, but lousy direction and the main star just wasn't convincing as a Prussian officer - with his hat on sideways half the time, more like Benny Hill

[gully_raker]

The Brumowski WOW would be the easyist to convert, just paint out the Skull but as Attilla57 said look at the illustrations as not all of MvR's Albatross were ALL Red.

[csadn]

IIRC most of the 80 victories were over pilots who never knew he was there (many of them clumsy two seaters like the BE2c). His success was due to his tactical skill at stalking the enemy and selecting the right approach, rather than flying rings around them in a dogfight. The same can be said of many famous aces in fact.

Indeed, this was covered in earlier postings -- going by the list in _Richthofen's War_, fewer than half were fighters (32/80), and barely 1/4 were single-seaters (27/80).

[tuladin]

According to Under the Guns of the Red Baron by Franks, Giblin and McCrery, 35 of the Baron's victories were against single seaters.

The Planes he flew during those Victories:

Albatros D.II 491/16..........16
Albatros D.III 789/17..........3
Halberstadt D.II ???..........13
Albatros D.III 2253/17.......21 (All during April, 1917 - his contribution to "Bloody April")
Albatros D.V 1177/17..........4 (In this plane he was wounded in the head)
Albatros D.V 2059/17..........2
Fokker F.1 102/17..............2 (an early Fokker Dr.I triplane)
Albatros D.V 4693/17..........2
Fokker Dr.I 152/17.............3
Fokker Dr.I 477/17.............9
Fokker Dr.I 127/17.............3
Fokker Dr.I 425/18.............2 (In this plane he was killed)

So that's:
16 in an Albatros D.II
24 in an Albatros D.III
13 in a Halerstadt D.II
8 in an Albatros D.V
19 in a Fokker Triplane

[csadn]

According to Under the Guns of the Red Baron by Franks, Giblin and McCrery, 35 of the Baron's victories were against single seaters.

OK, I see what happened -- I mis-IDed some single-seaters as 2-seaters (4 BE/12, 1 FE/8, 1 Martinsyde g100), so 33 1-seaters (tho' only the FE/8 could be considered a fighter -- I'm not sure what the hell the BE/12 was supposed to be...).

[tuladin]

From the book I mentioned in my previous post:

The BE12 was a fighting scout version of th BE2c; the only difference was that the front cockpit was closed over and a gun was mounted on the port side of the fuselage (some also had a gun on the top wing, set to fire over the propeller), and a 140 or 150 hp engine was fitted rather than a 90 hp.

[tuladin]

Again, according to Under the Guns of the Red Baron by Franks, Giblin and McCrery, 35 of the Baron's 80 victories were against single seaters. This is the number an types of each:

BE12.....................3
DH2......................5
DH5......................1
FE8.......................1
Martinsyde G.100.....1
Nieuport XVII..........3
Nieuport XXIII.........1
SE5a.....................3
Sopwith Camel........9
Sopwith Dolphin.......1
Sopwith Pup...........2
Sopwith Triplane......1
SPAD VII................4
TOTAL..................35

That, of course leaves 45 two-seaters:

AWFK8.........................2
BE2c-g........................17
BF2a............................2
Bristol F2b....................1
DH4.............................1
FE2b or d....................12
RE8.............................7
Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter....3
TOTAL........................45

The Richtohofen's War list may differ, of course.

[gully_raker]

From the book I mentioned in my previous post:

The BE12 was a fighting scout version of th BE2c; the only difference was that the front cockpit was closed over and a gun was mounted on the port side of the fuselage (some also had a gun on the top wing, set to fire over the propeller), and a 140 or 150 hp engine was fitted rather than a 90 hp.

Yeah Not quite what you would call a Front Line Fighter. Imagine what it would be like trying to line up an Enemy with a gun pointing 45 degrees out from your Aircraft.
Interestingly in the BBC WW1 series "Wings" they had a 2 seat BE2c fitted with such a set up to try to counter the Eindekkers around at that time.
If you have not seen that series try to pick it up as is very well done & some good airial stuff. No CGI back then!

[Dimetri1]

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft...n/raf_be12.php

[csadn]

Taking list as quoted -- bracketed numbers show _RW_ count:

BE12.....................3 [4]
DH2......................5 [4]
DH5......................1 [1]
FE8.......................1 [1]
Martinsyde G.100.....1 [1]
Nieuport XVII..........3 [5]
Nieuport XXIII.........1 [0]
SE5a.....................3 [3]
Sopwith Camel........9 [8]
Sopwith Dolphin.......1 [0]
Sopwith Pup...........2 [2]
Sopwith Triplane......1 [0]
SPAD VII................4 [5]
TOTAL..................35 [34]

AWFK8.........................2 [1]
BE2c-g........................17 [16]
BF2a............................2 [2]
Bristol F2b....................1 [3]
DH4.............................1 [0]
FE2b or d....................12 [13]
RE8.............................7 [8]
Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter....3 [3]
TOTAL........................45 [46]

So, _RW_ claims one more 2-seater -- doesn't change the percentages that much (1.25% :) ).

Yeah Not quite what you would call a Front Line Fighter. Imagine what it would be like trying to line up an Enemy with a gun pointing 45 degrees out from your Aircraft.

Hence my remark about being unsure what it was -- from what I've read, it looks like what happens when bureaucrats try to make a unit: "We have all this time and money invested in it -- surely there must be *some* use it can be put to!"

No, there isn't -- and don't call me Surely. :)

[batesyboy]

Cecil Lewis was being polite, the BE12 was probably, conceptually and in actuality, the worst waste of resources of ww1
But that doesn`t detract at all from the brave souls that flew it,
They even wasted some Hispano Suiza engines on the `d` version.

[Madboyo]

MvR 0.jpg Views: 712 Size: 153.0 KB" style="float: CONFIG" />
MvR 2.jpg Views: 708 Size: 100.6 KB" style="float: CONFIG" />
MvR 3.jpg Views: 713 Size: 133.6 KB" style="float: CONFIG" />

My conversion.

[somaliavet]

Very nice! You did a great job of capturing the opaqueness of the red over the crosses!

[batesyboy]

Almost without exception, the Baron would choose the softest target,
He was using this tried and tested tactic when he went after `May`which led to Roy Brown chasing him off.
In the course of his stalking of May, this led to the Baron losing altitude and being killed by ground fire.
Details of the Baron`s career that gets glossed over...
He was shot down and lucky to survive on at least two occassions.
The two that i know about were firstly (relatively well documented)
He was shot down by an FE2b ! hardly a front-line stunt flyer !
and even more astonishingly whilst flying an Albatros, he was totally suprised and shot down by a FE8 !
Indeed he was already going west before he realised the FE8 was on his tail...the biter bit you might say !

[Linz]

From what I recall from my youth MvR was issued a Fokker DVII but rejected it in favor of the tried and tested Dr1.
not sure if he flew it in combat.
Linz

[batesyboy]

I think you`re right Linz, It was a pre-production model,
there were a few stability issues, and it had the mercedes engine...
It wouldn`t have had much of a margin over the DR1

[csadn]

Details of the Baron`s career that gets glossed over...

Not surprising, really -- that's the fun part of Propaganda: How to make your enemy seem twenty feet tall and bulletproof while at the same time convincing one's one side their weapons were designed to kill twenty-foot-tall bulletproof things. (Ever wondered why in every WW2 ground-combat game the Germans invariably win the scenarios?)

(As to who killed him, and how: Well, I'm saving that for the documentary.... ;) )

[Albert Ross]

From what I recall from my youth MvR was issued a Fokker DVII but rejected it in favor of the tried and tested Dr1.
not sure if he flew it in combat.
Linz

He was killed in action before the DVII came into service

[Albert Ross]

(Ever wondered why in every WW2 ground-combat game the Germans invariably win the scenarios?))

Well they usually have more Tiger tanks and 88mm guns of every flavor on the table than the Germans had in their entire inventory.....

[csadn]

Well they usually have more Tiger tanks and 88mm guns of every flavor on the table than the Germans had in their entire inventory.....

*And* they *always* work properly, and have full fuel and ammo.

A "proper" WW2 armor game would look a lot like _OGRE_ -- one German Tiger, facing an entire Allied task force (mixed armor and INF); victory is determined by how much of the Allied force the Tiger kills before it has to retreat or gets blown up.

Many moons ago, I nearly decked someone at a con for asking "If the German stuff was so good, how did the Allies win the war?" :P

[IRM]

That's something I like about the Flames Of War rules. You get a company of 9 T-34s (or about 300 infantry !) to a section of 2 Tigers, and the Tigers have a good chance of getting bogged down in rough terrain and a small chance of breaking down completely when they try to free themselves or move at full speed (any of which stop it from firing, and often requiring a recovery vehicle to pull it's fat backside out of the fire ).

[flyingryno]

That's the problem any armor game they have to assign artificial points to the vehicles. Mainly to try to force you comply with a TOE. Every army has one. Game designers really aren't that smart. The point system is not always right. People designing scenarios don't have all the info, When historical info tells you that unit assault whomever or what ever. You don't always know what the operational str. was that time. Some of the Armored divisions that responded to the Normandy invasion were not at full str. an armored division at full TOE is about 250 - 300 tanks, once they got to the battle some of the armored divisions were down to less than 75 or less tanks. Every battle game starts of both sides with full TOE or a ratio of that to make it more manageable.

That's what I like about WoW its not units your using. Its individual planes. Unless your Trying to fight a mega game? I don't know if the set everybody in to Squadrons. Sorry long winded.

[IRM]

Not every game works like that, although I agree that it's common in many systems. The one I mentioned does use points to balance the sides (not always equally either) but TOE structure allows you to run understrength units (about 50% of "paper strength" minimum for armour, 35% for infantry) should the scenario require it, or at the player's whim in generic scenarios. There's limitations on the force mix, regardless of the individual components strengths, so it's possible to approximate historical battles where one or both sides have previously taken serious losses quite well.

[Jager]

I've played a number of games with points that result in reasonably balanced actions. And if your setting up a game for a club or con, you just do your homework.
Back in the day (god I sound like my friend's father), I would rather take Pzkw IVGs and Hs with some Pathers rather than a handful of Tigers. If I wanted mobile 88s, PanzerJagers.
Karl

[Blauer Baron]

Having just watched The Red Baron film I had to laugh in agreement with the "Benny Hill" description of the actor's slanting cap posted by Albert Ross. Nice one! At least he didnt have it on backwards, the young dude. The film was very moving and interesting in its detail, but a few sloppy representations of the pilots in some scenes were enough to make them unplausible in the rest. It took me ages to work out what made the film not work right for me in addition to what Albert Ros quite rightly says. Back to the point...With a few red paint jobs coming up, I hope someone mentions which red is best for Brumowski's or a von Richthoven, during the rest of this thread. It is a shame that someone is painting over a Brumowski skull out there while I am looking to red-out a Hautzmayer. Kevin.

[Beanie]

As to who killed him, and how?


Many claimed credit

All have their detractors and supporters.

Principal claimants are:
Captain A Roy Brown
Gunner Robert Buie(Lewis Gun) Australian 53rd battery #3801
Gunner Sgt CB Popkin (Vickers gun) with the Australian 24th machine gun company My choice)
And someone who cannot be discounted is an unknown soldier with a Lee-Enfield .303 who could have fired the fatal shot in the rain of bullets fired at Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen.

Also another point:

Dr Bean's account, in the Official History of Australia in the War of 1914 - 1918, that Captain Brown attacked von Richthofen from the triplane' right side is incorrect . They have demonstrated that Captain Brown attacked the German triplane from the south-east, that is from Richthofen's left side.

"All accounts agree that the entry wound was in the right side of Richthofen's chest so that this new evidence is further proof that Captain Brown could never have inflicted the fatal wound on von Richthofen

[Albert Ross]

There's an in depth analysis of it here http://priory.com/history_of_medicine/richthofen.htm including expert medical opinion of the effect of the wound.

The entrance wound was indeed on the right side of the chest, but almost under the armpit, so it had to have been fired from below. It's also a single bullet - there's no mention of any other holes in the cockpit or windshield, nor are there any more in him....this doesn't preclude a short burst from a Vickers or Lewis, but does not rule out the lucky shot from the unknown rifleman either. No-one will ever know.

[von Klauser]

I watched a PBS documentary a few years back. It was NOVA : Who Killed The Red Baron? I thought it was well done and looked at the different theories and pretty muched explained it to me reasonably well. It talks about the evolution of the aircraft weapons as well as the Baron.
I just checked and it is on dvd at amazon.

[csadn]

There's an in depth analysis of it here http://priory.com/history_of_medicine/richthofen.htm including expert medical opinion of the effect of the wound.

There's also the difference between "being shot down" and "being killed" -- from accounts of MvR's actions, it sounds as tho' Brown hit something important, but would not result in an immediate failure of the Dr.I (clipping a fuel line; holing an oil tank; etc.). It's entirely probable, like the two previous instances in MvR's career, he was riding a mortally-wounded unit.

And he was definitely alive when he crashed -- a Dr.I is inherently unstable; with no living hand on the controls, and a high-drag configuration, it doesn't so much fly as plummet.

The question I have is: Could the fatal wound described have been produced *while MvR was on the ground*? Like, say, getting out of the cockpit preparatory to making a dash for a hiding place, and subsequently to his own side of the lines? (Wouldn't have been the first time he'd done a runner from enemy troops -- when he was with the cavalry, he had to E&E from Russian cav units at least once.)

[Albert Ross]

Not a chance; if he'd been fired on while on the ground (don't forget the shot came from below), someone would have claimed it.

[batesyboy]

All the evidence i have read singles out `CB Popkin` as the far most likely candidate.

[gully_raker]

All the evidence i have read singles out `CB Popkin` as the far most likely candidate.

Yes I agree Lee. Popkin is the most likely as he shot at MvR as he turned back over the Ridge.
Incidently there was a History Channel Doco shown here a week or so ago called "The Mystery of the Red Baron" in the Dogfight series & included interviews with Noted Historians Alex Imrie, Norman Franks, Peter Hart & Professors from the Imperial War Museum, Hendon Museum & MvRs great nephew the current Baron.
Their conclusion was that Popkin was the most likely canidate. Brown had fired way too early & from too far away to have been responsible.

[csadn]

Not a chance; if he'd been fired on while on the ground (don't forget the shot came from below), someone would have claimed it.

Not necessarily -- the shot indicates the victim had his back turned to the shooter, which meant he was not confronting whoever was shooting at him. Moreover: Did MvR carry a pistol with him when flying?

Shooting a man in the back while unarmed, even in 1918, was frowned upon; shooting the most-feared German pilot in the back while unarmed -- well, those were Australians; given their heritage, they had to know the value of the words "He was dead when I found him, Officer".... (And it explains why none of them ever kicked up a fuss on the matter at the time -- questions would be asked, the alibi falls apart, and someone goes down in the history books as a "murderer", fairly or not.)

[gully_raker]

Not necessarily -- the shot indicates the victim had his back turned to the shooter, which meant he was not confronting whoever was shooting at him. Moreover: Did MvR carry a pistol with him when flying?

Shooting a man in the back while unarmed, even in 1918, was frowned upon; shooting the most-feared German pilot in the back while unarmed -- well, those were Australians; given their heritage, they had to know the value of the words "He was dead when I found him, Officer".... (And it explains why none of them ever kicked up a fuss on the matter at the time -- questions would be asked, the alibi falls apart, and someone goes down in the history books as a "murderer", fairly or not.)

Sorry Chris but I cannot accept your Theory as the bullet that Killed MvR entered his SIDE not his Back & the tradjectory was from beneath & upwards. The Bullet then exited out his left breast & the bullet lodged in his clothing which proved the bullet reached him from LONG Range. If he had been shot by someone near the Aircraft on the ground the velocity would have taken the bullet through his clothing & out the other side of the Aircraft! Also they would have had to shoot him from the front to be sure of killing him not through the side of the Aircraft & the tradjectory would have been vastly different. There were at least 3 Medical examinations carried out by medical staff & Doctors & these reports are available with Diagrams showing the path of the bullet.
I know you have your own ideas that an Australian soldier shot him after the crash but he would have been way to valuable as a Prisioner for this to have been condoned!

[csadn]

First off: Given the generally-poor-quality of the reports from that period, and the lack of pictoral evidence, it's impossible to tell with any accuracy what the reality of the damage was -- and do some research on eyewitness testimony; you'll wonder why it's ever admissible in court.... :P

the bullet that Killed MvR entered his SIDE not his Back & the tradjectory was from beneath & upwards.

Given the trajectory shown in the priory.com link: It could as easily have been inflicted on someone pushing himself up from a chair and leaning over -- like someone trying to minimize exposure while trying to get behind concealment.

The Bullet then exited out his left breast & the bullet lodged in his clothing which proved the bullet reached him from LONG Range.

Not quite -- it proves the bullet was slowed by something at some point in its travel; maybe the spinal column and/or other bones?

More: Given the known poor quality of British ammo of the period (remember all those "jammed" results in the _WoW_ deck? :) ), there's no telling what velocity the bullet was traveling when it hit.

And if the Aussies weren't entirely forthcoming about what happened (see later), there's no telling where the bullet was fired from, either.

(A similar phenomenon was noted by Kennedy "second-gunman" debunkers -- bullets fired at an identical vehicle from an identical distance from an identical rifle did not behave in the manner expected; the infamous "Magic bullet" could easily have done what it was purported to have done, and wound up looking like it did. Even the pro ballistics people were surprised.)

If he had been shot by someone near the Aircraft on the ground the velocity would have taken the bullet through his clothing & out the other side of the Aircraft!

See above -- I never said the Aussies were standing right next to him when they fired. Depending on whose account one reads, the Aussies could have been a couple hundreds yards away to start with. The Aussies tell him to stay where he is; MvR can't hear them, and starts making moves to bolt; the Aussies fire a warning volley; and one of them hits MvR. Nothing planned, mind -- to quote a well-known Australian band, "It's A Mistake"....

Also they would have had to shoot him from the front to be sure of killing him not through the side of the Aircraft & the tradjectory would have been vastly different.

See above -- they *didn't* *want* to kill him; but a warning shot or several might be fired in order to convince him to not try to run for it -- and they only had to get (un?)lucky once.

There were at least 3 Medical examinations carried out by medical staff & Doctors & these reports are available with Diagrams showing the path of the bullet.

I know; I've read parts of all of them. As the priory.com link says:

"The two reports differ somewhat. Smith and Downs believe that the bullet passed straight through the chest, while the second report suggests that the bullet passed posteriorly to be deflected by the thoracic vertebrae. The evidence for this is based on probing the wounds and this can be notoriously unreliable in gun shot wounds. Any probe would pass easily through damaged lung tissue to impinge on the vertebrae, creating a false impression. If the bullet had been deflected by the vertebral column, the descending aorta and inferior vena cava would have sustained damage. We do not know if this was so. As the chest was not opened, the proposed deflection must remain in doubt. " [emphasis added]

In simple terms: The autopsy was botched, repeatedly, from beginning to end -- no actual cutting was performed; no photos were taken; and the means used to come to conclusions would be considered suspect by first-year med students of the period. So there's no way of knowing for sure what actually happened with the bullet.

What is certain is this: A Dr.I being flown by a dead man does not make a controlled-crash landing, much less a proper landing as some report. It requires someone alive, and in full control of all his faculties (the Dr.I was an infamous ground-looper even with experten at the stick). That MvR's Dr.I made a relatively-controlled landing tells us he was alive and well when he reached the ground -- but when authorities arrived, he was dead. To quote Tone Loc from _Ace Ventura, Pet Detective_: "Something ain't stirrin' the sauce, man."

I know you have your own ideas that an Australian soldier shot him after the crash but he would have been way to valuable as a Prisioner for this to have been condoned!

Which is *exactly* why the Aussies didn't try to claim him -- at some point, before the higher-ups got involved, they realized, "Oh, bloody hell -- we have committed the ne plus ultra of screw-ups here", followed by "OK, what's the best course of action to follow?" Obviously, the best course is to claim "he was dead (or dying) when we got to him, Officer". In the chaos of the war, no one's going to take the time to line up the stories and notice none of the facts cage; and by the time someone does figure it out, it's going to be far too late to do anything about it.

One theory, anyway. I'm certainly not going to try writing a book about it -- at least, not a "historic fact" book, anyway. :)

[somaliavet]

Has anyone else read The Red Baron's Last Flight by Norman Franks and Alan Bennett? Its a very clinical look at MvR's death that addresses many of the issues stated. I highly recommend giving it a read.

[LGKR]

Hello friends. I put together a Score card for MvR based info from the web and a well researched book named "Under the guns of The Red Baron". You can find it in the files section of this sight, link below.

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...do=file&id=879