Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

Franek,
The 'K' reports were closed for 75 years (from 1940). However, I have not heard that they have been released to our National Archive. Even if they do still exist, it is likely their existence will be denied. That is standard practise for previously secret/sensitive documents. The 'K' summaries 'did not exist' until they started appearing through requests via the Freedom of Information Act in the USA!

The tactics for a pure Bf 110 fighter unit would be escort to a bomber formation. The actual formation would, I think, be down to the Staffelkapitän or Staffelführer, particularly as the Battle of Britain progressed and formations would likely be of reduced numbers, unless more than one Staffel formed up together.

Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

John


I am really not sure what sensitive information could be in K Reports. Certainly there was no such information in the Gestapo officer interrogation report, who no doubt was through much more thorough questioning. So it looks like bureaucratic attempt to keep the red tape, rather than anything else. Let's hope they were not dumped. One may wonder whatever else is kept in hiding - I have seen a number of loose documents, which do not appear as sets in TNA.



I assume that 110's tactics changed depending on mission. I have not seen any description on typical battle formations thoough. Getting through the combat reports it looks that I/ZG 2 aircraft patrolled between He 111s and Me 109s, and then formed a Lufberry circle over Thames Est. The formation attacked by No 303 was in vics of five and three, and no doubt there were Me 110s of II/ZG 2. Still not sure if they were masquerading as bombers to attract attention or of they were flying a close escort do Dorniers. Quite confusing.

Re NH, the RAF pilot was Sgt Proctor. There was another 310 pilot attacking it, and it seems two 303 aircraft, so at least seven different pilots took part. Of course unless they were confused as to what they were firing at and what they were seeing. The most evident case I came across was another 310 pilot, who fired at one aircraft, which went down, but then he watched another one, which also crashed.

The tactics for a pure Bf 110 fighter unit would be escort to a bomber formation. The actual formation would, I think, be down to the Staffelkapitän or Staffelführer, particularly as the Battle of Britain progressed and formations would likely be of reduced numbers, unless more than one Staffel formed up together.[/quote]

Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

The reason the actual Q&A reports are so sensitive is because they show exactly what the PoW gave away under interrogation. Many of them cracked under pressure. We were quite ruthless, given that we believed invasion could occur at any time. In with the Q&A is also the record of information obtained by hidden microphones, and also 'stool pigeons'. Had these been made available during the PoWs lifetime, or even now, it would be 100% embarrassment to the individual, or family, concerned. So we 'lose' these kind of documents, or say they no longer exist. Or we say they are closed upon review for another 100 years. That's how things work with the Government. If they don't want you to see it, you ain't gonna see it!

Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

Franek, in case it wasn’t clear from John’s reply, the transcripts of thousands of prisoners’ conversations picked up by hidden microphones in do exist and can be seen at the National Archives in London.

Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

To add to what John has said, pre-NA release, I had access to said reports. When I got copies, the paragraph which usually contained morale or political leanings was blocked out as some of those were now successful businessmen etc. For example, one of my contacts who was now a Dr was described in 1944 as "more Nazi than a Nazi"

Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

Hi
Well, actually I am after the narratives describing circumnstances of loss. I can say, that those of 1943-44 period were extremely useful and interesting.

Yes, I am aware of transcripts of recorded talks, there was a book published about the operation just few years ago. Therefore I am even more surprised that the K Reports are not released. I would understand 100 years since birth rule, but then it should be explicitly said.
Political leanings might be more an embarassment for the HM government or FRG government rather than persons involved. As noted, many of the airmen became prominent figures in the West Germany, and for the past decades they were friends, allies in NATO. Soviet propaganda often portrayed FRG as a bunch of Nazis, and well, getting through SD & Gestapo personal files, it indeed looks so. Quite recently there was such a pressure on the US government, that several secret files form various agencies were released. I can imagine thatthe pattern could be repeated in regard of K Reports.

Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

Going back to the losses of Me 110s. As far as I was able to work out, based on published data and combat reports the situation was as follows. Anyone can fill any gap? What surprises me is the lack of any aircraft listed damaged, but making back to France.

I/ZG 2.
1. Billericay 3M+BB - port eng on fire, then starboard, tail broke off in dive and then spun down, two baled out, PoW.
2. Herne Bay 3M+LL - gunner baled out, PoW.
3. Deal 3M+FL - both engines on fire (which first?), blew up, two baled out but killed.


II/ZG 2.
1. Hornchurch Stab A2+NH - stbd engine on fire, two baled out but killed.
2. Little Burstead 4 A2+BH - port engine on fire then stbd one, crew baled out? Both killed.
3. Wickford 4 A2+JH - dived to the ground, both killed.
4. Birchington 6 A2+ML - ditched, pilot resc, PoW, gunner killed.

Re: Me 110 losses on 7 September 1940 - circumstances
 

Not to go too much further off track but I wonder why a good portion of Target Force or T-Force reports remain classified. I thought there was a 50 year rule.