Facebook has built a reputation for being notoriously insecure, taking payments from attackers with little to no concern for the safety of its users; but a pattern of neglect for information security is not exactly the issue when a finance guy in Sydney, Australia gives a shout-out to a Facebook user for what he calls an “amazing shot” in history:
As anyone hopefully can see, this is a fake image. Here are some immediate clues:
- Clarity. What photographic device in this timeframe would have such an aperture let alone resolution?
- Realism. The rocket exhaust, markings, ground detail…all too “clean” to be real. That exhaust in particular is an eyesore
- Positioning. Spitfire velocity and turbulence relative to V1 is questionable, so such a deep wing-over-wing overlap in steady formation is very unlikely
- Vantage point. Given positioning issue, photographer close position aft of Spitfire even less likely
That’s only a quick list to make a solid point this is a fabrication anyone should be able to discount at first glance. In short, when I see someone say they found an amazing story or image on Facebook there’s a very high chance it’s toxic content meant to deceive and harm, much in the same way tabloid stands in grocery stores used to operate. Entertainment and attacks should be treated as such, not as realism or useful reporting.
Now let’s dig a little deeper.
In 2013 an “IAF Veteran” posted a shot of a Spitfire tipping a V1. This passes many of the obvious tests above. He also inserts concern about dangers of firing bullets and reliably blowing up a V1 in air, far away from civilians, versus sending it unpredictably to ground. Ignore that misleading analysis (shooting always remained the default) and revel instead in period photographic image quality:
Several years then pass by, and nobody talks about V1 tipping, until only a few weeks ago a “Military aviation art” account posts a computer rendered image with a comment
Part of a new work depicting the first tipping of a V-1 flying bomb with a wing tip. Who achieved this?
Shame this artist’s tweet with the image wasn’t given proper and full credit by the Sydney finance guy, as it would have made far more sense to have a link to the artist talking about their “new work” or even their gallery and exact release dates:
Who achieved this? Who indeed? The artist actually answers their own question in their next tweet, writing…
First to physically tip a V1 bomb was Ken Collier, 91 Squadron, in a Spitfire MkIVX. He scored 7 V1 victories and was later KIA. #WWII #WW2.
On the bright side the artist answers their own question with some real history, worth researching further. On the dark side the artist’s answer also sadly omits any link to original source or reference material, let alone the (attempted) realism found above in that “IAF veteran” tweet with an actual photograph.
The artist simply says it is based on a real event, and leaves out the actual photograph (perhaps to avoid acknowledging the blurry inspiration to their art) while including a high-resolution portrait photo of the pilot who achieved it. Kind of misleading to have that high-resolution photograph of Ken Collier sitting on the ground, instead of the one the IAF Veteran tweeted of a Spitfire in flight.
The more complete details of this story not only are worth telling, they put the artist’s high-resolution fantasy reconstruction of a grainy blotchy image into proper context. Fortunately “V1 Flying Bomb Aces by Andrew Thomas” is also online and tells us through first-person accounts of a squadron diary what really happened (notice both original photographs together in this book, the plane and the pilot).
Normally a V1 would be shot down, as you can see in this Popular Mechanics article describing hundreds destroyed in 1944 by 22mm cannons on the Tempest.
Just to make it absolutely clear, since the Popular Mechanics’ story about cannons doesn’t specify shooting or tipping, here’s a log from Ace pilots who downed V1.
It not only described debris after explosions was a known risk to be avoided, leading to gun modifications that would hit at longer-ranges, it also characterizes tipping as unusual and low frequency like at the end of a run (with gun jammed).
Again, the book “V1 Flying Bomb Aces” confirms specific ranges were used for shooting bombs so they exploded in air without causing harm, preferred against tipping.
…the proper range to engage the V1 with guns was 200-250 yards. Further out and the attacker would only damage the control surfaces, causing the V1 to crash and possibly cause civilian casualties upon impact. Any closer and the explosion from hitting the V1’s warhead could damage or destroy the attacking aircraft.
Apparently the reason it could be tipped at all was Nazi-designed control systems only had a gyro stabilizer for two dimensions, lacking control of roll movement.
Tipping really was a dangerous option, sending the bomb out of control and to explode on something unpredictable.
In the case of the artist rendering that started this blog post, a Spitfire pilot found himself firing until out of ammo. He became frustrated without ammo so decided to tip a wing of the V1. Shooting the V1 was preferred, as it would explode in air and kill far fewer than being tipped to explode on ground. Only because he ran out of bullets, and in a frustrated innovative state, did he decide to tip…of course later there would be others, but the total tipped this way was in the dozens out of the many thousands destroyed.
Does finance guy in Sydney feel accountable for claiming a real event in an artist’s fantasy image? Of course not, because he has been responding to people that he thinks it still is a fine representation of a likely event and he doesn’t measure any harm from confusion caused; he believes harm he has done still doesn’t justify him making a correction.
Was he wrong to misrepresent and should he delete his “amazing shot” tweet and replace with one that says amazing artwork or new rendering? Yes, it would be the sensible thing if he cares about history and accuracy, but the real question is centered around the economics of why he won’t change. Despite being repeatedly made aware that he has become a source of misinformation, the cost of losing “likes” probably weighs heavier on him than the cost of having low integrity.