Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

Marius,

I, like many others, have done some work on this air battle. I have all the Bomber Command ORBs for 1939-1940 and there is not a shred of evidence that any other squadrons took part in this operation.
All 12 Wellingtons lost came down in the North Sea or just offshore on the German coastline. Five more were damaged but all reached England and all five were later repaired. That is all.
The British were not concealing any other casualties, at that time or post-war.

Have you evidence of any other case by any other air force during WW2 where many extra losses were revealed long after the war ended ?

Regards,

Martin Gleeson.

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

Hi Marius,

with the LGK XI list, I don't believe that you can take it at face value. To put it in to context I believe that you would have to view the original reports as these should describe the unit reporting the crash. Then it should be possible to plot the positions of the reported crashes and to gauge from where and from what distance the observations were made. Are these records infallible? No, I have a LGK XI example of an aircraft observed to crash in to the sea but where the aircraft concerned landed heavily damaged in the UK a couple of hours later.

It seems that you still do not comprehend the scale and scope of archival material available from the British side, and if you did you would appreciate that to erase a "ghost" formation and losses from history would be next to impossible:

1. Bomber Command records would have to somehow be changed not only for the day concerned, but to retrospectively erase all trace of the machines and men in the "ghost" formation that where lost. The posting in of new aircraft and crews to replace losses would have to be hidden.

2. Aircraft production records and/or aircraft record cards would have to be altered.

3. Any survivors of the "ghost" formation and the multitude of personnel from their squadrons in the UK would have to maintain a vow of silence to their graves.

4. The casualty records would have to be altered and/or destroyed and the families of the missing men would also have to maintain a wall of silence.

Quite frankly, I think the British had more pressing issues in which to expend resources on at that time :)

Anyway, I would suggest that you start looking at the original source documents and trustworthy written material:

The National Archives, Kew, London:

AIR 27 Series - Squadron Operation Records Books and Appendices - these can be ordered as a digital download

AIR 24/200-201 - Bomber Command Operations Record Book (i.e. war diary) 1936-1940
AIR 24/210-214 - Bomber Command Operations Record Book Appendices 1939-1940

AIR 25/1 - No 1 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book 1936-1943
AIR 25/22 - No 2 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book 1936-1940
AIR 25/26 & 27 - No 2 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book Appendices 1939
AIR 25/51 - No 3 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book 1926-1940
AIR 25/56 - No 3 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book Appendices 1939
AIR 25/93 - No 4 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book 1937-1943
AIR 25/96 - No 4 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book Appendices 1939-1940
AIR 25/109A - No 5 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book 1937-1943
AIR 25/111 - No 5 (Bomber) Group Operations Record Book Appendices 1939-1940

AIR 81/62-73 - these are the newly released RAF casualty files relating to the losses on 18 December 1939.

Misc files that may contain information on the 18 December 1939 actions:

AIR 2/4289 - OPERATIONS: Sea Areas (Code B, 55/2/11): Reconnaissance and attacks on German battleships in Heligoland Bight 1939-40
AIR 2/8541 - OPERATIONS: Sea Areas (Code B, 55/2/11): Attacks on German Fleet in Heligoland Bight: points from Bomber Command 1939-40
AIR 14/157 - W.A.7(a)(Attack on Wilhelmshaven): reports on various aspects of operations 1939-1940
AIR 2/3018 - PLANNING: Germany (Code B, 85/2/4): Plan W.A.7(a) (Plan K): Attack on Wilhelmshaven 1938-1942
AIR 14/156 - Operation Wilhelmshaven Area 3 Group 18-12-39 Nos. 149, 9 and 37 Squadrons. 1939-1940
AIR 20/292 - Part I to Plan `K' (W.A.7(a)): Attack on Wilhelmshaven: appreciation by Air Staff 1939

This list is by no means exhaustive. For printed books, besides what has already been mentioned, there are the Air Britain books published on aircraft serials, the Bomber Command Losses series by Bill Chorley, Vol 1 of which has recently been published as an updated and revised edition.

"My feeling is telling me our British friends have concealed something."

Marius, the fundamental question is who is hiding what from whom and why. Since we are dealing with the once classified operational and administrative records of the Royal Air Force, the only answer to that question would be that the RAF could only have to be hiding from themselves, and there would be no logical reason why...

Regards

Rod

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

Guys, I think we have pretty well beat this to death.

Marius it seems to me you have posted a lot of speculation without any real proof of a "conspiracy". If you have some official, original documents that you can quote, along with the sources, please do so. Otherwise, lets not waste time with pointless speculation. The documentation from the RAF/UK side is pretty overwhelming.

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

Yes, no 'conspiracy' and no 'hidden' losses from British side. Only twelve. But I think Marius' doubts in 'traditional' version are justifable. We can't ignore picture from 'the other side of the hill' and just say 'no ghost formation, the German pilots reported victories in wrong place and their timing was wrong' etc. In this case why we should belive any records from any side?

One could just see posts #46 and #50 in this topic - the description from both sides fits perfectly, in those circumstances double claiming by Luftwaffe was inevitable.

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

Well gentlemen,
The idea of I./ZG 76 forming the ghost formation, yes, very interesting. But not serious. Several Messerschmitts were patrolling in the air and the unit had 23 Bf 110 at all on this day, as I remember.

I believe you all that there is nothing in the documents you can look inside.
Regular bomber units attacked the target flying via Heligoland to Wilhelmshaven. This is correct and was described in several Operation Records Books.
Maybe it is the wrong trail. Let me say the following: I don`t think on a regular RAF-unit.

For the second ("ghost") formation it could have been a "training flight" or whatever else. At this stage of war I can imagine the arrogance of militaries starting such noncence and riskful missions, for just showing its own power. Maybe the whole formation consisted of completely unexpierenced crews and all Wellingtons were shot down between 14.40-15.06. In such a case it would be much easier to conceal true losses from the public. Especially if it was a shortly and fast created "command" of school crews.

Here is the most important part of the Lagebericht West 119 from 19 December 1939 r., I mean the second part is very, very interesting, when you compare it with the German victories documented by Luftgaukommando XI (as well with Toni Woods claims list).

Im Bereich der Luftflotte 2:
Abschliessende Meldung vom 18.12.1939, 2130 Uhr:
Um 1343 Uhr wurden etwa 12 feindl. Flugzeuge 55 km nordwestl. Helgoland, 1356 Uhr etwa 10 feindl. Flugzeuge nördl. Helgoland im Anflug nach Südost gemeldet. Beide Staffeln flogen die Weser- und Jademündung an und wurden, nachdem sie bei Wilhelmshaven von Flak beschossen waren, bei Wangerooge und westl. davon in einen Luftkampf verwickelt. Abflug nach Westen.
1445 Uhr flogen etwa 22 weitere feindl. Flugzeuge nordwestl. Borkum die ostfries. Westküste an. Der größte Teil dieser Flugzeuge flog längs der ostfriesischen Inseln nach Osten, 6 Flugzeuge über das Festland bei Norden auf Wangerooge. Auch diese Flugzeuge wurden in einen Luftkampf bei Wangerooge verwickelt.

Regards,

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

It's not only most serious, it's obvious. Again, we can't ignore what the other side says. From RAF records it's clear - these aircraft were not British. But it's also hard to believe German observers reported non-existent aircraft. The only explanation - German observers made an error about nationality of these. Your quote from document just confirmed it. The aircraft flying from the west joined the battle in the Wangerooge area. As for the numbers - some double counting still could be present.

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

Andrei, I appreciate your comments, but in your last sentence, you ask, "In this case why we should believe any records from any side?" The difference is that all nations engaged in propaganda for daily consumption by the public and the press. It is another thing to fake official records that were not open to the public--this is not a Freedom of Information time frame like today. No one could see the records and no commander would fake records of losses, etc. because he would not get replacements that would enable his unit to get back to full strength. This is a classic case of overclaiming and the propaganda people took over and ran with it.

Marius, many posters have overwhelmingly refuted your arguments about "ghost" formations and RAF special units, arrogance, etc. The records of what you are saying are just not there. If you want to believe there are still "secret" documents out there that would prove your point, fine, I cannot argue. But that means they are still secret and we cannot know. Further speculation is pointless.

If you want to continue down this path, then I will shut this thread down and you can go to another forum.

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

John et.al.,

One last note here. I've sent to Marius the translation of the Heinrich Weiss manuscript account of the Heligoland Bight action on 18.12.39. Heinrich compiled from every source available to him AND FROM THE GERMAN PERSPECTIVE, a detailed summary of this action. While noting discrepancies with some of the German reports, his account is entirely consistent with what has been put forward here as the events of that day. He concluded that the discrepancies were due to over-claiming and erroneous reporting. He found no reason to create an alternative story of what happened. Keep in mind that this is a very experienced researcher who compiled a 6000+-page manuscript on LW operations in the west from the beginning of the war to mid-1941. You don't get much more experience working with the source documents and information than that.

If Marius doubts the conventional story of what happened I think that it is up to him to produce the evidence. When and if he has this, I think that we will all take his objections to the conventional story very seriously. Otherwise, there isn't anywhere else we can take this other than pure speculation, which gets us nowhere.

Regards,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

John, my post was not about faking official records or propaganda. 'In this case why we should believe any records from any side?' - I've mean we can't believe RAF records and at the same time disregard similar Luftwaffe records or vice versa, as you could see in this topic. My point is to obtain true picture we should correlate reports from both sides.

Re: Losses German Bight 18.12.1939
 

Many historians have doubts on the British story. Here is a short example:
"...nach Gefangenenaussagen sollte es sich nur um einen Navigations- und Übungsflug mit propagandistischem Nebenauftrag gehandelt haben. Fest steht, dass im Gebiet um Wilhelmshaven bei diesem Angriff keine Bomben fielen..."
J.Prien/P.Rodeike - Einsatz in der Reichsverteidigung von 1939 bis 1945 Jagdgeschwader 1 und 11 Teil 1 1939-1943, Eutiin 1993, p. 11.

I can confirm this, as it is indeed mentioned so in German documents; for example British demonstrative mission was supposed.

Larry & John, Heinrich Weiss tried to combine both sides or the information he could get at that time - German and British. He made an interpretation but could not explain the differences for example what I cited a few hours ago from Luftlagebericht West Nr.119. This is an original document and you have to bring the evidence (not me!) that it is falsified or whatever. I like more the assumption about 22 German aircraft (where is the evidence?) than "pure speculation which gets us nowhere".
The differences are hard to explain today but I do not believe we will find the truth with "you can go to another forum". I am really shocked about that.

Best wishes for all,