Stanley Orr

[knusel]

Hello,

has it ever been clarified, if Stanley Orr was credited with the two BV 138's shot down on 9May44 ? (s. Orr entry in Aces High).

Cheers,

Michael

[keith A]

The Bv138s were shot down the day before by Wildcats of 898 Squadron. Orr was flying on the sweep but I don't think he actually shot them down.

regards

Keith

[knusel]

So the entry in Aces High is a mistake ?
The importance of these kills lies in the fact that if they constituted two half shares for Orr, Orr would be the top WW2 Royal Navy ace with 10 [6+8] kills. Otherwise the top ace remains Cork with 9,75 [9+2] kills.

Michael

[Brian]

Hi Michael

New research would suggest that Angus Hogg DSC was the FAA's top-scorer of WW2. He will feature in a new book to be published next year!

Cheers
Brian

[knusel]

Hello Brian,

Hogg ? I have him listed with 7,5 [4+8] kills.

What is your opinion about the BV138's and Orr ?

Michael

[keith A]

The BV138s were shot down by several Wildcats, my notes has them identified as Black Flight, Lt Cotching shared in both victories, one with SLt KB Pearson, the second with three pilots (possibly also including Pearson). There does appear to be an error in AH, Orr himself watched the action. Both Bv138c-1 were from SAGr130.

[Brian]

Hi guys

I haven't researched that action as yet.

The Telegraph obituary stated:

One day in May 1944, Orr shot down a German seaplane and shared in the kill of two others which were landing on the water. He was awarded a third DSC for his courage, skill and determination, and mentioned in dispatches for outstanding services in Emperor.

Wikipedia states:

For his part with this operation, Orr was awarded the second Bar to his DSC.[2] Flying in a mixed formation of 18 aircraft from 804 and 800 Naval Air Squadron on 14 May, Orr led the formation, attacking shipping near Vikten Island and along with Lieutenant Blyth Ritchie, he shot down a Heinkel He 115 float plane.[16] At the same time he also shared in the destruction of two Blohm & Voss BV 138 flying boats and two more Heinkel float planes, for which he was mentioned in dispatches.[3]Cheers
Brian

[Stig Jarlevik]

I can't see any real error in Aces High

Shores is very clear when he states 'Reportedly his section shot down these two flying boats. It is not clear whether he participated in these victories or not.'

Shores research at the time was exactly like that when the book was published.
Now some 20 years later, we can strike these two shared victories and instead of saying Orr had '6 and 6 or 8 shared destroyed', you simply delete 'or 8' and also delete the line 9 May 1944.

Cheers
Stig

[Brian]

Hi Stig

Back home already?

Trust you had a great time.

I believe that Chris Shores met Stan Orr many moons ago, so he should have known the full story! Possibly not?

Cheers
Brian

[Stig Jarlevik]

Yep Brian

Safe and sound! Lovely trip and just sobering up...:)

Regarding Orr, no idea, but a meeting depends on many factors and the outcome on even more. Since I have never met Orr I don't intend to go any further on the topic, but since you no doubt met many others I think you know what I mean.

Cheers
Stig

[knusel]

This is of help. Thank you.
Has there ever been given a final assessment on Jack Sewells possible claim on 16Jan41 ? This one is decisive for Orr's rank within the FAA top ace list.

Michael

[knusel]

Meanwhile, I think that the Fairey Fulmar top ace list looks like this:

Orr 8,5
Sewell 8
Hogg 7,5
Barnes 7
Tillard 6.5
Sparke 5

[Flavio]

Hi Michael,

according to the book "806 Naval Air Squadron: The FAA's Top-Scoring Fighter Squadron of the Second World War" by B. Cull and F. Galea, 806 Sqn was credit with 87 enemy a/c destroyed and the list of top aces is the following:

1. Hogg 7+6 (9,6)
2. Sewell 6+8 (10)
4. Barnes 6+8 (9,6)
4. Orr 6+7 (9.33), including 1 shared with 804 Sqn in 1944.

Oddly, C. Shores in his book "Aces High" credited 806 Sqn with 35 victories.

Flavio

[knusel]

Good evening Flavio,

oh, that's odd indeed.
I thought the totals were the following:

1. Hogg 7+6 (9,6) => 4+8 (7,5)
2. Sewell 6+8 (10) => 6+7 (9,5)
4. Barnes 6+8 (9,6) => 6+2 (7)
4. Orr 6+7 (9.33) => 6+6 (9)

The Cull/Galea totals are higher. May it be they include probables or damaged ?

Best greetings from Switzerland,

Michael

[Flavio]

Hi Michael,

the information from Cull/Galea book are detailed and the probable and damaged claims are well quoted. The totals they give (and I reported in my previous post) are exclusively confirmed victories.

The controversy arises because the number of victories credited by Cull/Galea to 806 Squadron (86 enemy a/c destroyed, plus 14 probables…) is by far greater than that given by Shores in in “Aces High” (35 confirmed).
Moreover, carefully comparing the victories claimed by Orr, Sewell, Hogg from the two lists, there are several differences, too much, especially for Hogg; the impression is that the sources used were quite different.
Surfing on the net, someone noted that in the 'Selected Bibliography' of Cull/Galea book there was no mention of any of the Air-Britain books, not even 'Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm' or the current 'Squadrons and Units of the Fleet Air Arm' which is a curious omission.

A part from these two books, I have no other books on the subject, neither primary sources to compare with, able to establish what are the correct data. I hope someone on the forum can add something.

Regards
Flavio

PS
If you want I can send you the combat claims list from Cull/Galea book, so you can made the comparison by yourself; send me a PM.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Flavio

Perhaps not quite as surprising at it may seem, since Air Britain's books are either about the aircraft and the units and not about the claims made by these units.

For example claims by 806 Sq is mentioned rather superficially and cannot (and should not) be taken as any final "official" claims summary.

With regard to the aircraft book 'FAA aircraft 1939 to 1945' I believe no mentioning is made in relation to pilots claims vs aircraft. Mind you I have not gone through every page checking that!
Only those pilots known to have paid the ultimate prize in relation to a known s/n is mentioned.

I don't think Air Britain has ever published a single book about aces, claims etc since that is not the primary goal of the Society.

While not having the 806Sq book myself, I am quite confident that both Cull and Galea have done their "homework" pretty well. They are quite well known for that! :)

Cheers
Stig

[BrianC]

Hi guys

Most interesting!

Regarding Gus Hogg - I have a copy of his detailed journal, which was my main source.

Regarding Stan Orr - I have a copy of a letter in which he listed all his claims as shown in his logbook. There is nothing recorded for 1944!

Stay safe
Brian

[knusel]

Good evening dear Brian,

sound like personal documents. Which level of officialdom did they reach ?

I found the following main differences between the kills listed in your book and the scores listed elsewhere:
Sewell 6+8sh kills vs 6+7sh kills: according to Hakan Gustavsson his shared SM79 kill on 10Nov1940 was a damaged claim but the enemy crew was MIA, so maybe it was upgraded to confirmed later ?
Barnes 6+8sh kills vs 6+2sh kills: Christopher Shores does not list his shared kills on 29May1940 and 17Sep1940, his two shared claims von 2Sep1940 are listed as damaged, were they confirmed later ? His shared SM79 kill on 10Nov1940 was shared with Sewell (see above). Shores indicates his 12Oct1940 shared kill as personal, lists an additional Z501 kill on 12Nov1940 but omits his two kills on 19Jan1941.
Hogg 7+6sh kills vs 4+8sh kills: His shared claim on 1Sep1940 seems to have been a friendly fire incident. The other books seem to omit two personal kills and to categorize one personal kill as a shared kill.
Orr 6+6sh kills in 806Sq vs 6+5sh kills in 806Sq: His 18Jan1941 kills is not listed by Christopher Shores. Barrett Tillman quotes Orr himself who described his involvement in the 1944 shared kill.

I wish you a very good Thursday,

Michael

[knusel]

Good morning Brian,

any good news regarding the release of new books written by you ?

Have a good start into the new week,

Michael