Watched a great program on UK Channel 5 on Wednesday night about the demise of the Red Baron. It was finally proving that he wasn't shot down by an aircraft  but was killed by ground fire.

The common theory is that he was shot down by Canadian Pilot Arthur "Roy" Brown whilst he was chasing another aircraft.
This documentary almost completely proved that he was killed by an Australian machine gunner on the ground. They used a flightsim and models of the aircraft with accurate flight characteristics and accurate gun characteristics. They used modern forensics to access the wound which killed the baron and also used historical records and an account from the last survivor who witnessed his final flight. In addition they managed to stage a real time real (although not period) aircraft re enactment using lasers in the gun positions on the ground.

It was proved on the flightsim, that "Roy" Brown could not have hit the Barons plane from the distance and angle in his official report. The aircraft was not a stable enough platform and the Guns not accurate enough over the distance reported. Most aircraft shot down by other aircraft in WW1 were shot down from a distance of less than 100ft any further away and the shot was more than likely just a lucky hit. Equally the shot which killed the Baron was just as lucky although more accurate as the gun was on a more stable platform.

The Baron died as a result of breaking his own rules of engagement ...... He got too low .... got fixated on attacking one aircraft and followed that aircraft over hostile territory.

Alas for him he didnt die at the hand of another pilot but at the hand of an infantary man's lucky shot.

Cheers
eno 

I saw a simular program a while back (might have been the same one) and it was pretty convincing.  Personally, I never believed that Brown killed him I always thought the a ground gunner had.

But, one thing that I have learned from watching TV shows like this is that they only present evidence that helps their case which makes it seem like "proof."  There is pleantly of evidence that Brown did in fact shoot him down (and I don't doubt that someone could make a show which "proves" it, lol). 

Anyway, I have always been interested by WWI aces and thought that the show I saw was great.  But, in the end I agree with what they said-that Brown did not kill him.

There is one person left alive hes one of the soldiers in the area of the gunners. ........  Using modern pathology techniques the known ballistic characteristics of the bullet and computer modeling, derived from the pictures of the Baron's wounds, it was estimated that he would have been dead within 2 minutes of the bullet hitting him. The Baron was alive only long enough to utter one word "KAPUT" when he was found approximately 1minute after his plane crashed.. That was a fact from the only surviving eye witness who found him. This leaves approximately 1 minute from when he was hit. Browns attack was over 2 minutes earlier and lasted about 30 seconds. The only person within the timeframe  above to have a good chance at a shot was an Australian gunner called Pvt Evans and all thats know about him is that he died in 1968.

I think this was a fairly accurate account of what happened given all the evidence that they had ....... I just can't find a website for the programme so you can look for yourselves. I'll keep trying!!
I'm quite used to reading between the lines with these programmes and this one didnt seem to have the intent of proving anything one way or the other ..... The historian involved seemed to be an enthusiastic amature just trying to get what truth he could out of the evidence he had and the programme seemed to be a vehicle for more evidence gathering.

cheers
eno

From what I've read I don't think that Captain Brown officially claimed the kill. This was decided by higher authorities after it was discovered that Manfred von Richthofen was the dead pilot. If I remember correctly, Brown's report stated that he attacked a red triplane that was chasing a member of his squadron. This aircraft "spun into the ground" according to other members of the squadron. It's often overlooked that a "kill" in air combat terms refers to the aircraft, not the pilot.

This argument has been going on for almost 90 years & I suspect that it will continue for decades yet. People seem to find this story fascinating for some reason. From 3 separate post-mortems carried out at the time it seems quite likely that the single fatal bullet came from the ground. It was probably a fluke, good or bad luck depending on your point of view. Whether it came from an ordinary rifle or a machine gun will never be clear. In reality it's just another incident among so many 1,000s of others. The point is, does it really matter now?

I don't think the term "Red Baron" was coined until long after WWI had ended.

Don't get me wrong Eno. I find this just as fascinating as anyone else, although I'm more interested in the history of Manfred von Richthofen himself. I read that his mother always believed that he was shot down by Captain Brown. His family preferred to think of him meeting his end at the hands of a worthy airborne opponent rather than being shot down by ground fire.

Meyekul gave me this link to Manfred von Richthofen's only book, Der Rote Kampfflieger, or "The Red Fighter Pilot."  
http://www.richthofen.com/
It's a free online publication & well worth a read.

PS. One problem I have with these recreations of historical events is that they can't possibly account for all the unknown variables. Nobody knows for certain at what angle the aircraft was when it was hit or even the angle of the pilot's body & torso in relation to it. He could possibly have been taking evasive action or twisting round in his seat to look for the attacking aircraft. I'm sure no fighter pilot of his experience would be flying straight & level waiting to be hit. Then you have to take the wind strength & direction into consideration. These were frail, slow-flying aircraft & were most likely crabbing & not flying a straight path.

Without any photographic evidence they have to rely on eyewitness reports of people there at the time. In my experience these are usually unreliable even when taken down soon after the event. Two people witnessing the same thing in far less confusing circumstances often give conflicting reports of what they've just seen. As for accounts given many years afterwards, time plays strange tricks on the memory.

I personally prefer to believe that the Baron was killed while "in the saddle", a victim of aerial combat just like all those he claimed. It probably should be a shared kill though, Richtofen would never have been in range of ground fire if not for his dogged pursuit of Hap May...and his dogged pursuit by Brown.

Many Canadians take pride in the story of Roy Brown (who never did claim the kill, although legally he has the distinction as it was officially credited to him)...but for me there is a more important figure in WWI Canadian fighter history, Billy Bishop with 72 kills and the father of the RCAF. You can read part of his history here: http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/can_bishop.html including a brief account of his duel with Richtofen...one of the rare encounters of the masters.

Acepilots.com has the same type of mini bios on many WWI figures...interesting reading.

the documentry ws really good in my opinion. Does it matter. From an official stand point, not really, but for alot of people historians, fans of this era and so on i think it still does matter. With conspiricy theorists around you'll never be able to close a case, because even with 100% proof they dont seem to be able to accept it. A couple of people can be credited for the red barons end though like silverfox said.