Charles E W Bean, Diaries, AWM38 3DRL 606/270 PART 2/1 - 1918 - 1939 - Part 6

83c
W.J. Stagg Esq.,
1st March, 1930.
-2-
opened fire; but the official report says that minute examination
of the machine showed only one bullet hole in it.
Major Hinton of the M.G. Col offers the opinion
that under the conditions described "it would have been almost
impossible for a trained machine gunner to have missed" and
"Popkins was an excellent gunner." But although Perkins and others
seem to have fired many bursts, only one bullet hit.
It is perhaps still more curios that none of the
ground fighters make any mentioned of the "dog-fight" of the 6
Camels against the Circus. Was this because on the ground they
were too occupied with their own job to notice the spectacular
show overhead, or because it was obscrued behind cloud, mist, or
battle smoke ? Cutlack strengthens the latter possibility in his
account that the infantry "could not see the whole fight, for the
mist hid much of it" and that the ground gunners "saw two whilring
and twisting forms emerge from the haze. (Brown and Richthofen).
Is it a solution of the conflicting reports and
the firm conviction of each fighter that he fired the fatal shot,
and it was fired in the air out of sight of the ground, and that
the ground gunners were firing on the badly wounded man as he
plunged slanting down, tried to recover control, failed, and crashed
Anyhow the fact that the main air fight was not seen by the infantry
rather discounts the dogmatic statement of your contributor
"Brown was well out of range". 

83d
-5-
W.J. Stagg Esq.,
1st March, 1930.
Although I hope the Official Air Historian may be
able to collect evidence which will place the matter beyond dispute,
I agree with Major Hinton that" it is one of those happenings
which will never be cleared up", never at any rate, to the satisfaction
and agreement of all concerned in it.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Boyd Cable.
P.S. If you publish above I hope you'11 send me any
further comments or criticism. 

84
Dungay
Murwillumbah,
30th Jan. 1930.
Captain C.E.W. Bean.
Official War Historian.
Dear Sir,
A short time ago I read
in the Tweed Daily the Secret Report of Sir. Talbot Hobbs regarding
the death of Richtofen, & was exceedingly surprised to learn
that Buie & Evans had been given the credit- Buie certainly
was an actual gunner^firing but not Evans.
I wrote to the Tweed Daily in an attempt to rectify
matters and quoted you as the one most likely to have authentic
records, and was more surprised in today's issue of the same paper
to see that you give the same gunners the credit.
After the death of Richtofen, ^Headquarters sent for the two gunners to be
interviewed & I had the unpleasant task of taking them there.
You personally, interviewed those gunners and later they received
their congratulations through the Battery O/C of AM Headquarters.
Their names, your records will ^or should show, were Bombardier Seccull
in charge & actual gunner of No 1 gun and Gunner Buie in
charge & actual gunner No 2 gun.
Why was Evans sent to be interviewed at Hqrs.?
Any member of the Battery could answer that question?
I personally in the course of Battery duties was at No 1
gun was with the gun when Seccull opened on the enemy
plane followed by Buie with No 2 gun and though at the
time I was certain the guns brought him down, as he went 

2

84a
out of control directly over No 1 gun and both guns
had registered ^on the plane, no bullet from either gun could have
administered the fatal wound, if it entered, as is said from
the right side, as their lines of fire were direct front: (See
Sir Talbot Hobbs' Secret Report) and after swerving out of
control the plane presented a stern view.  If you know
definitely that he was shot from the ground, and that the finding
of the post mortem was correct, a study of the Reports, secret or
otherwise & the map, you will also know definitely that neither
guns of the battery was responsible.
At a later period to when Seccull & Buie were congratulated
at the Battery per letter from General Rawlinson Evans made the
mistake of showing congratulatory letters to members of the Battery &
as they knew who were the gunners they couldn't understand & began to ask
questions. In due time Evans was paraded before the Major & if
Evans or the Major cared to, they could inform you of what happened.
As a matter of fact most of us thought that he had got a friend to
type the copies for him for distribution to anyone interested
Don't you think it was rather strange that Gnr Evans had a "new"
interview with the Major when it was found that he had letters in his possession?
if he had been the actual original gunner? In what manner did he place
his claim when his recognition was a shock to all concerned and no member of
the unit actually at the position took him seriously? Buies' statement "I was
told I would get something out of it:" was the spur that goaded Evans into
making a false step probably.  I thought then & still think that Evans
made his claim as a joke & finding gullible persons to listen to
him thought that it was too good a joke in a dull life to allow to go past. 

84b
3
Evans was certainly on a gun as No 2 & should
have been included as one of the gunners but as
Headquarters required the actual gun layers only his
claim was spurious.
I say emphatically that Evans was not the
gunner. and three gunners of the 53^rd, myself,
Seccull, & Evans himself could swear to that.
If it is not too late to rectify matters the following
gunners could give you definite information
the O.C. Major L. Beavis. (original Duntroon) Lt. J.
Punch, Norwich Union Fire Co. Sydney, Seccull. &
Evans and any gunner or signaller of the unit actually
at the position on the day.
You well know that the only people who would
give reliable information are members of the unit who saw
the proceedings and I fully appreciate your difficulty
in having to rely on Secret Reports etc & what is told
you from different sources (myself included).
Wishing you, personally, success in your undertakings
I am,
Yours faithfully,
JC Doyle (Lt. 53rd Bty)
P.S. The foregoing is simply to point out the error in
crediting Evans  JCD and to show that his claim
must have been acknowledged when the episode was
almost forgotten by the unit.  ^JCD 

84c
4
The following is a plain statement fom one
who knew more about the downfall of Richtofen
than 99% of those who have written on the subject
Knowing that Seccull was the gunner of No 1
actually being along side of him when he was
firing at the enemy plane I assent that "A
grave miscarriage of justice was there when his name
was omitted from records and Evans substituted
and that the person or persons responsible should
have been called to account and severely dealt with."
There has been no secrecy regarding my whole
correspondence as letters of mine giving the actual
facts have appeared in the press and though it may
be too late to rectify matters you will I know, as a
diligent seeker after true "material" for your compilations
investigate the matter and have the statements proved.
To be exact No 1 gun & gunners has been eliminated
by crediting Buie & Evans.
Signed.  J.C. Doyle    Dungay
30.1.30. 

85
FL.4151
----------
5469.
8 February 1930.
J.C. Doyle, Esq.,
Dungay,
Murwillumbah.  N.S.W.
Dear Sir,
Many thanks for your letter. I am, however, puzzled,
because looking through the original notes which I took down
at the interview with the Lewis gunners in April 1918, I see
that I have their names as -
Gunner Buie, R.
       "        Evans, W.J.
Are you sure that it was Buie and Seccull whom you brought to
Headquarters, and not Buie and Evans?  Of course it is possible
that I took down the names from some paper given to me at Headquarters, 
and not from the men themselves, and that when I was
speaking to them I wrongly imagined that I was talking to
Buie and Evans;  but the note is in shorthand, taken down at
the time as they spoke, and I certainly was then under the
impression that I was interviewing Buie and Evans.
I should be grateful if you would let me have the
benefit of your memory on the point, as to whether you are
certain that it was Seccull that I interviewed.
Yours truly,

C.E.W. Bean 

86
Dungay.
Murwillumbah.
12th Feb. 1930.
Captain C. E. W. Bean.
Victoria Barracks.
Sydney.
Dear Sir,
Yours to hand and now
I in turn am puzzled.
In reply to your question I can only reiterate
that Bombardier Seccull & Buie were the actual gunners
whom I took to Headquarters as ordered.
(1)  I actually saw Seccull open with No 1 gun on
the enemy plane.
(2)  I was ordered to take Seccull & Buie to Headguarters
(3)  You personally interviewed those men.
(4)  Seccull & Evans were congratulated by the O.C. on
receipt of message from Rawlinson.
(5)  Evans was brought before the Major later for being
in possession of congratulatory messages to which he
had no right:
(6)  I gave Evans a good character when he was before the
O.C. & was called down later by the O.C. for giving the
man a good character (Evans wasn't too bad, but at that time the
general belief was that he'd had the letters specially typed for
himself. 

86b
Every member of the Battery knew that Evans wasn't
the gunner & treated the matter as a joke
Any doubts you may have regarding the gunners
you interviewed could be cleared by Major L. Beavis
or perhaps the easiest way would be to get into touch with
Evans if possible and ask one question.  "Why didn't
they send you to Headquarters to be interviewed instead
of sending Seccull"?
The only explanation I could offer would be that
the error occurred at the interview.
In all probability Buie was asked. "Who was with you"?
and he in all sincerity answered:  Gnr Evans".
When Seccull was inteviewed immediately after, you
may have thought that he was Evans.
As the matter stands, No 1 gun & gunners are
eliminated.
Trusting that you will right matters,
I am
yours  f 'fully
J.C. Doyle.  53rd Bty. 

87
FL.4151
^----------
5595.
12 March 1930.
J.C. Doyle, Esq.,
Dungay,
Murwillumbah, N.S.W.
Dear Mr. Doyle,
Your letters led me to carry out further investigations, 
and I feel pretty sure that your memory has slipped
you up.  The records of the 53rd Battery contain a signed
statement from yourself giving an account of the firing on
Richthofen, and ending - "No. 598, Gunner EVANS, W.J. was
the Lewis gunner".  Lieutenant A.E. Ellis made a similar
statement about Buie.
Bombardier Seccull when interviewed by the
Melbourne "Herald" in 1925, gave that newspaper these statements 
as proving that Evans and Buie brought down the 'plane.
He added that he himself was in charge of both Lewis guns.
Yours faithfully,

C.E.W. Bean