2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Found these in 'Aircraft Casualties in Kent'-:

A)6.9.40
????Kent. HE111 FTR after attack on London.
(Location not known).
Lt Schactebeck killed. Fw Jessen, Uffz Haslache, Fasz & Jahme missing. Based Morbecke.

B)15.8.40
Brenchley, Castle Hill. e/a

Since the book was published has anything transpired that would shed any further light upon these 'odd' (adendum) reports?

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Dave,

Why this has been documented as a casualty in Kent I cannot imagine but at least the date of loss, September 6, 1940, is correct:

2./KG26 Heinkel He111H-3 (6902). Crashed in the North Sea during night sortie to London, exact circumstances unknown. FF Lt Gerhard Schachtebeck killed, BO Uffz Karl-Heinz Fass, BM Uffz Otto Ihme, HS Gefr Josef Haslacher, and BF Fw Werner Jessen (of 1./KG26) all missing. Aircraft 1H+AK 100% write-off.

I know of no enemy aircraft down in the area of Castle Hill, east of Brenchley, on August 15, 1940. What is the source for this ? Kindly ignore my question if it is the ‘Casualties in Kent’ book you still insist on quoting. I would strongly recommend that you file that book or, at least, check it against better information before posting. I’ve no idea when it was published but it is clearly totally unreliable.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi Peter
Whilst we are on the imprecise reports in the Aircraft Casualties in Kent book. Would you be able to shed any light on the following?

18.8.40 Chatham e/a
25.8.40 Southfleet - Dartford e/a
31.8.40 Rochester, Strood. e/a
30.9.40 Higham. e/a
2.11.40 Northfleet. Downs Road. 3 crew killed. JU88A-1

The book: Aircraft Casualties in Kent Part I: 1939 to 1940, Compiled by G.G. Baxter, K.A. Owen and P. Baldock, Kent Aviation Historical Research Society - Meresborough Books 1990 - ISBN 0948193 506
It's a locally (Rainham, Kent) produced book that contains lots of tantilising if some what incomplete/incorrect reports? I just want to know if they are correct

Any info appreciated

Thanks

Clint

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Peter sorry to bother you,
are you saying just Jessen was from 1/KG26, or the whole crew?

Best regs,
Steve.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

I have to agree with Peter Cornwell in relation to the "Aircraft Casualties In Kent" book. When it appeared in print I bought a copy. It didn't stay in my book collection for very long!!

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Thing is the book kind of gets your hopes up as it lists several aircraft downed in my area not mentioned anywhere else. Also you wonder where they got their info. I mean they could have asked around the local areas, local eye witness reports. There are a lot of reports in the Battle of Britain Then & Now that do not give a location. Many of those must have crashed in the sea with no witnesses but some on land might have not been recorded or records lost. For instance I have an eye witness report of a HE111 coming down near Higham, Kent towards the end of Sept 1940 but for the life of me I cannot find any other info anywhere. Could it be the listing from the book mentioned in my post above (30.9.40 Higham. e/a)? Some entries in the book might have some substance but it's difficult to know which ones without cross referencing with the other BofB books.

Clint

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Clint,

The only casualty to match in any way those on your list took place on November 2, 1940, as follows:

5./KG76 Junkers Ju88A-1 (4159). Shot down by AA fire during night sortie to London and exploded on New Barn Farm at Southfleet 7.45 p.m. FF Oberfw Oswald Grünke, HB Oberfw Albert Vogl, and BF Uffz Martin Biller all killed, BS Uffz Erich Stumpp missing. Aircraft F1+DN 100% write-off.
What little remained of three of the crew was buried at Stone Cemetery, near Dartford, only Oswald Grünke and Albert Vogl being identifiable and buried along with one 'Unknown' who was later identified as Martin Biller - Erich Stumpp is still officially 'missing'. The identity disc of Albert Vogl and a parachute release buckle were amongst items subsequently recovered by Kent Battle of Britain Museum and now in Hawkinge Aeronautical Trust collection.

The remaining entries have no foundation in historical fact that I can see, and to have actually produced such dubious and speculative entries as late as 1990 is truly regretable, given the wealth of reliable documenation available at that time. It takes more time than I can afford at present to check such unsubstantiated nonsense so this will be my last response to queries relating to entries in 'Aircraft Casualties in Kent'.

Steve,

Only Jessen was 1 Staffel.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi Peter

I appreciate the time you have taken to post. I am new to this Luftwaffe history/downed aircraft hobby and I only came to get interested in the subject due to my love of creating accurate profile renditions of the aircraft that crashed in my area. An artist I am, a historian I am not, but I am learning and my book collection on the subject is slowly growing. So thanks for pointing out the said books failings and in future I shall treat it's contents with much more scepticism. (That's if it is not filed under B.I.N. by then):)

Thanks

Clint

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Clint, I do not know where the info. in the book came from or whether it was based on local info. In my case as a lad locals told of a Dornier Flying Pencil that crashed at BishopsCourt Chelmsford on BoB day, turned out to be a He111 in June 1940, Where I worked in the 70's long term employees told of a He111 crewman who fell to his death in the depot in 1940 in fact it was a Ju188 crewman in April 1944. To this end there was a Do17 of KG2 which crashed into a house in Chatham on 15-9-40, a Fw190 of SKG10 shot down at night 16/17-5-43 at Higham, Fw 190 of SKG 10 shot down in river Medway 21/22-6-43, and a Ju188 at Shorne on 24/25-2-44,

Brian Bines

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Steve Vizzard agreed this book would make a good 'foundation' upon which I could then 'build' my research, concerning Tonbridge Rural, Tonbridge & Tun.Wells losses WW2.

Apart from BoB T&N, Fighter Command Losses (N Franks) & local reportage, where else would one turn in order to assemble detailes pertaining to losses during the period 1939-40? I ask.

Having said that I'm grateful indeed for esp. Andy Saunder's & Peter's input to date.

To give you an idea. I went to a farm where a certain Hurricane crashed.
I was told that over the years the owner's father had agreeingly waved goodbye to 99% of the wreckage, to at least half a dozen (now unknown) individuals, in his field, including the engine. Where's it all gone? There're only a few suitably aged locals who can help piece events together now.

Asked where the stuff & the details went I think the farmer's father had some details, he could be contacted in heaven as it were?

I think the information was taken in this book from at least 20 sources, and the enormity of the task is such that further embelishment might have meant 3 men from Kent Aviation Historical Research Society never would have completed this truly huge project ?

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Thanks for the info Brian. I presume these are entries are from the Blitz Then & Now I,II,III? I have not got round to purchasing these volumes yet. I knew about the Strood (River Medway) FW190 and I have research including the local newspaper report on the incident if you are interested? Let me know?

Clint

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

PLEASE CAN A SEPARATE ENQUIRY BE DEALT WITH ON A NEW THREAD?

ITS VERY DISCONCERTING TO LOOK AT 10 REPLIES, 8 OF WHICH ARE REPLIES TO AN ENQUIRY REGARDING MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD STRICTLY BE DISCUSSED ON A FRESH THREAD?

(Peter C you must be very popular!)

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

I accept that you will only be as good as your sources but the trick is to identify those you can rely upon and those that are best ignored. In order to make that choice you may well need to access surviving contemporary primary sources to satisfy yourself of the actual facts. It has been my experience that these sterile reports are often infinitely preferable to previously published accounts or even eye-witness accounts. I have already suggested Kent County Archive in Maidstone to you. This holds useful documents that would assist in your local research and your RDC may also hold similar material; ARP Incident Reports, Police Reports, Burial Registers, Coroner's Records etc. The NA(PRO) at Kew also has a wealth of documentation relating to enemy casualties in AIR2/8736-6, AIR22/266, etc etc

My comments above as to sources refers. And as someone who appreciates all too well the challenges of tackling the occasional 'huge project', I may be forgiven for appearing unimpressed by certain content of 'Aircraft Casualties in Kent' as queried elsewhere in this forum. Granted, no reference book ever produced by mere mortals will be without its share of errors, but it seems clear that little real care can have been given to substantiating the 'facts' presented in this book before its publication in 1990 when much of the information necessary was freely accessible. But it clearly provides ample scope for further in-depth research in resolving many apparent discrepancies in the historical record and I wish you every future success in doing so.

As for my popularity or otherwise, I have no idea and even less interest.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Apologies Uckwash for the slight Hijack. (hey at least your thread was getting bumped?)

Clint

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Thanks chaps for taking the trouble to in part explain things better.

I've already discovered an anomaly in regards to Cebrzynski's Spitfire, which a little bit of 'ironing' of the facts could prove interesting.

In ernest I need to collect information from 'across the board' and will in time get across to Maidstone Archives too.

RAF records at Kew are great, generally accurate too. I've found local knowledge to be frequently (not exclusively) accurate, sometimes even humourous if a little 'reshuffled' with age, soon to be lost forever!

But as most of the sites reveal themselves to be of BoB vintage, very little is now left either of what passed before, by way of the weekend groups of excavators, and I'm finding it impossibly hard to locate who these people were, and in which corner of the World their earlier research findings have ended up in? Or where or how I might accost them in my quest to extract the truth.

I could bury myself deep in researching one crash site or alternatively in order to produce a bigger picture, I have had to scrape the barrel perhaps with whatever kind of methodology that is within my grasp. Remember this is Kent! the County which witnessed perhaps more arial actions during the BoB, than any other County only then to throw away at least part of the evidence

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Many thanks Peter for the confirmation reg Jessen, much earlier!

Best regs,
Steve.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

One further point, although I'm not sure it will hold any interest.

That is this:

Artefacts, remains & the accompanying research & findings from a/c crash sites in Kent seem often to be almost exclusively kept within the domain of a few bands of brothers? Clubs (& individuals) past & present operating during the window of opportunity that was, with metal detecting in its infancy?

Information not freely circulated, or obtainable? Therefore whilst it is easy to be disparaging about using books like 'A/c casualties in Kent' written probably mainly 'in the dark' so-to-speak 'A/c casualties in Kent' is a bloody good effort, at least as far as was possible, by a group not engaged at the time during the first 'age of opportunity'?

Lets say I was trying to write such a book, without the help & support afforded to other publications from such groups, without Internet forums, how otherwise would I get anywhere near the Scientific accuracy & factualness Peter is aluding to without any privileges that might be possibly have been afforded him in 'BoB then & Now' (of access to such data)?

If I'm wrong to think rivalry doesn't exist amongst individuals & societies of Aviation historians & archaeologists, over the sharing of information, please feel free to correct me for intuitively believing for some obscure reason is a problem.

I myself have only been following up the current line of research, a decade, so excuse me if I appear surprised. I defy any relative newcomer to break the ranks of those 'in the know'.

If all information has in fact always been available to one and all, I am indeed wrong.
Then there is, I agree, a case to be disparaging about 'A/c casualties in Kent' on the basis that very little effort was therefore expended in its preparation, and editing, to ensure that it was worth the paper that it was indeed written upon. However if there were issues relating to the above, regarding accessability of certain records, I can't blame Baxter, Owen & Baldock, for their seemingly superficial presentation, of whatever they had on hand.

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Mr Cullen,

With some effort. But you seem to be expecting something for nothing. Privilege, like respect, is bestowed by others - it is not a divine right. So, if I was afforded access to ‘privileged information’ during the time that I have been actively engaged in this type of research, it was invariably through somebody else’s choice and, presumably, because (a) my approach was correct, and (b) they felt I deserved/earned their co-operation.

Psst, your paranoia is showing. It is my experience that those with little knowledge tend to guard it closely while the converse is also usually true. There are, I am sure, other visitors to this forum who as ‘relative newcomers’ themselves could dispute your comment.

I repeat, the information required to document aircraft losses in Kent more accurately than was apparently achieved by Baxter, Owen, & Baldock in ‘Aircraft Casualties in Kent’ was freely available to them and in the public domain back in 1990. Certainly that for 1939/40 which has been the period mainly queried in this forum to date. Anyone who cared to do so could consult the appropriate public archives, refer to available published sources, or approach others for required information. Had the publication appeared 30 years earlier I would have no grounds to be at all critical.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi Peter.
Since the thread has now turned in essence into an appraisal, I need to look in more detail at what you have stated above.
I'm sure & accept you likely earned the rights to access certain bits of information.
What do I mean by that?
Well I'm refering to records, photo's & documents, not in the Public domain, but gathered in connection with excavations, by individuals, as souvenirs, or as worthy additions to Museums past or present. For some reason which I rather wonder now was sometimes once possibly financial, was almost always exclusively in connection with the Battle of Britain, & the period involved.
I accept that 'Aircraft Casualties in Kent' when published in 1990 could have leant more heavily upon your earlier commendable publication, as that by then was in print?
Why was 'A/C casualties in Kent' never completed?
Well, please tell me if my paranoia is clouding my view, because my hunch Peter is that information (not always in the public domain) pertaining to the remaining 'sites' (exclusive of BoB) will remain water tight, until they too have been sucked dry. And exhausted of all artefactual evidence, by brothers. Then as with BoB sites of interest, all will be revealed, as the sites are no longer risks as they have been sucked dry.
But from what you are saying, its not this at all.
You suggest that actually its perfectly possible, given the right approach, from outside the brotherhood, (I'm paranoid again! damn) to figure out, in these cases, as I myself am endeavouring to do, & to obtain a complete picture, (& picture's'!) potentially as good as, or, extending even beyond the scope, of what the excellently (for its day) comprehensive, factual 'Then & Now' series definately achieved, & therefore that A/c casualties was indeed a weak effort, by a group of 3 men who had not 'earnt' by correct approach, sufficient privileges to access all that was required, to make it good.

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

I can't wait to join this "Brotherhood." Do we get a free apron and a secret handshake?

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Who knows, Max, I certainly don't. Conspiracy theorists only I expect.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

I've read this ongoing discussion with interest, and feel it is time to add my views, in order to put you straight on a few things.

But first, a little paragraph on my background in research. I started in 1980, hoping to be able to find a lot more out about the 'well known but little known' Lw unit, Erprobungsgruppe 210. I knew absolutely nobody, apart from seeing names on/in books. So I started by writing to various authors via their publishers, and began to slowly garner information. Writing to Jagerblatt in 1983, I made contact with the first former member of the unit. It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse. I attended a reunion in Germany in 1984, gathered more contacts, and things moved on from there. I trekked the length and breadth of Germany and Austria for years in pursuit of information and first-hand accounts, as did others. From the UK side of things, authors/researchers did get back in touch with me, and an ongoing exchange of information took place. It wasn't a case of 'all take and no give' from either side. Things progressed, and I was eventually able to write my book about that unit. Research continued with another researcher, which most people know about. Further books eventually followed.

Now, as for those who have carried out excavations over the years, what do you expect that they will find? I'll tell you. Lots of artifacts like bits of fuselage, wings, engines guns, etc.. The occasional W. Nr. from a Lw aircraft might come to light to confirm a particular loss and location. But do not run away with the idea that those who did/do excavations get all their information from those digs. They did their research as well, delving into archives here and abroad at undoubtedly great cost. The dig was only one part of the overall work they did in connection with their research.

I find it particularly insulting that you allude to a 'brotherhood' when in fact no such thing exists.

I find it disgusting that you see fit to call into questions the things that Peter Cornwell has pointed out to you. As for this paragraph: "...Lets say I was trying to write such a book, without the help & support afforded to other publications from such groups, without Internet forums, how otherwise would I get anywhere near the Scientific accuracy & factualness Peter is aluding to without any privileges that might be possibly have been afforded him in 'BoB then & Now' (of access to such data)?..." What privileges? Peter had no privileges. He worked his arse off over a long period of time gathering information from a host of sources, networking with other researchers regarding information. Investing an incredible amount of time and finance into his research (as all researchers do, without exception). There were no internet forums when Peter did most of his research, no e-bay from which to gather photos, either individually or collectively. Privileges? Don't make me, and others, angry with your facile, throwaway comments which do both you, and this forum, a disservice.


And to answer your question, yes, your paranoia is clouding your view.

Regarding that book, what Peter was pointing out was that the information was out there, if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above). To not bother, and produce factually incorrect information lends itself to people pointing out the errors in the work. Nothing more, nothing less.

And to round this off, let's demolish your idea about a brotherhood once and for all. There is a major project going on at the moment (look at one of the 'sticky's at the head of the forum). This project involves people, literally, from all around the world. There is one particular person, and I will not name him, who started off with very little knowledge of the subject, but entered into the swing of things on this and other forums. Over time, his knowledge has increased tremendously through his own endeavours. He is now a reputable and valued member of this forum, and the project, and in future years his stature will grow and grow. He took the right approach you see. He didn't go after people and demand information. He entered into discussions, asked questions, proffered ideas and suggestions, and garnered information. THAT'S the way to go about things. So this statement of yours is completely blown out of the water: "I defy any relative newcomer to break the ranks of those 'in the know'." He has done it, as have others.

Ditch your idea of 'brotherhood', ditch your paranoia, and get real to the actual situation that exists.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi John,
Travelling up and down the Country in place of far simply using modern resources like this, frankly seems too old shool to be true.
Perhaps 'privileges' was too strong a word, to describe the dividends reaped from forged relationships. My apologies.
Peter's books are of great value, but I could not concur, that local Knowledge was of little use, which is possibly why I suggested 'factualness'. I would go so far too as to say that would constitute an indignity to the local elderlies of Kent.
I read what you say with interest, however I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse.
30 years ago I did exactly that, by bicycle I explored the old Airfields, and visited Kew, with a friend, at the age of 14, when yes I agree, things were harder, what with no internet.
But just because my seniors had to do things the hard way doesn't in my mind mean that one should now unnecessarily endure the same degrees of difficulties in doing so.
All the best, to you both.
Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

But that's usually what it takes when you're dealing with primary sources from 65-70 years ago.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

uckwash,

You want to read my post properly before replying to it. Then you would not garner the following criticism.
You say: "...I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse..."
I said: "...It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse...",
and: "...if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above)..."
So, I reiterate, read what is written first, digest it, THEN make reply. Don't mis-quote me, because I will always come back at you. Pure and simple. I did not say YOU should get off your arse.

As for this: "...Travelling up and down the Country in place of far simply using modern resources like this, frankly seems too old shool to be true..."
Well you sit on your arse and see how much first-hand research information comes to you. You'll get it second-hand in books...

And you finish off with this: "...But just because my seniors had to do things the hard way doesn't in my mind mean that one should now unnecessarily endure the same degrees of difficulties in doing so..."
To me, that comment smacks of being the refuge of the lazy. I have a completely open policy that anyone wishing to see all my research papers lodged in a certain archive can do so, but in the words of Groucho Marx (when commenting that he never forgets a lady's face) 'in your case I'll make an exception'.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

I made no such statement. Local knowledge has its place but always needs to be weighed most carefully against all other evidence. Contributors to this thread have already commented on the fallibility of memory. Also, at this distance in time from the actual events, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any local knowledge is even first-hand.

Not at all - only if you want to achieve similar results. There is no dispute that the advent of technology has made research infinitely more convenient and abundant information easily accessible. But I'm afraid that this makes my earlier comments to you on sources (Post #13) all the more relevant. There is no material difference in dubious information culled from internet sources and that gathered from unreliable books – which is where we came in, I believe.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi Steve.

You may not have said as much (that I was lazy), but there's an inference, reinforced in your 2nd point:

'that (my) comment smacks of being the refuge of the lazy'

Peter, I was refering to:

'I accept that you will only be as good as your sources but the trick is to identify those you can rely upon and those that are best ignored. In order to make that choice you may well need to access surviving contemporary primary sources to satisfy yourself of the actual facts. It has been my experience that these sterile reports are often infinitely preferable to previously published accounts or even eye-witness accounts'.

The fact that were all now jumping in to shoot me down, reinforces my notion that (I am told is wrong headed) I am facing a bit of a 'closed shop' here.

Hopefully Groucho Marx will have relaxed his new world order sufficiently for me to get some sort of response, by the time I post my next enquiry on here.

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi Arthur,

For fuck's sake, READ what people write. You are not being shot down, you are being corrected in the erroneous things that you post. Read this again, slowly:
You say: "...I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse..."
I said: "...It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse...",
and: "...if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above)..."
Now, if you read this, I said in the first quote that I am the one who got off his arse!
I suggested in the second quote that the authors should have got out and about to get everything that was available at the time (as Peter C has pointed out) in order for their published work to be as accurate as possible.

There's no 'closed shop' here. You've got people with decades and decades of research experience trying to point you in the right direction on certain matters, and you do not appear to be interested in taking on board anything they say. All you appear to want to do, in my opinion, is to continue disputing things. Well you carry on thinking that book is wonderful and factually correct.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

John.
I never said 'A/c casualties in Kent' was factually correct.
I was refering to the style of writing applied to the Then & Now series.
I'm with you on the lack of analysis applied in its preparation. Totally.
I was simply trying to determine if it was fair to criticise its authors, on the basis that 'perhaps' they had not got full access to the Archaeologist's research.
It now appears they did, so I am grateful to have been able to reach that conclusion.
So there we are.
Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Thread closed for a number of reasons.

Too much argument, too little respect and not enough patience.

A gentle reminder, please keep in mind that it is still a privilege to be able to discuss and debate with a number of authors and researchers who happen to be a member of this community. They share their time and knowledge with us, in return it doesn't take much effort to show some appreciation.

This is not a strict forum with many rules, just a little respect, being civil and having common sense goes a long way.

:piliot: