Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

I am woder about differece between claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41?

1. There are following list of victories: 3 enemy were shot down for certain (2xJu 88 + 1 Me 109), next were 3 Ju 88s counted as "probables" and next 6 Ju 88s were counted as "damaged", according: R.A.F in Russia by H. Griffith, p. 69.

2. As I rigth remember pilots of 151. Wing (81+134 Sqn) were credited with with 3 certain destroyed Ju 88s. Such amout of victories is in C-F Geust's book Red Stars 4, or in other sources. So there are very often given such data of 151. Wings succes in Russia as: 11 Me 109 + 3 Ju 88 official credited as victories/destroyed, not counted probables and damaged. It was onle one battle Hurricanes versus Ju 88s.

In this comparnision 1. v. 2. one Ju 88 is "missing"?

BTW.
There is very well know for me, that during this attack KG 30 had lost in fact 3 Ju 88 A-5s, this is not the point.

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

There is a great article by Mark Sheppard available online covering operations of 151 Wing in USSR:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...anes/index.htm

This article was evidently written using unit records and it mentions two Ju88's destroyed, four Ju88 as a probable and five as damaged on 06.10.41, the difference in totals probably came from the fact that each confirmed Ju88 was shared by two pilots, as mentioned in the text

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Hi thanks, :-)
I know it very well, and due to this I make this asking. During the same battle over Vayenga against Ju 88s A-5 of I/KG 30, Soviet fighters (of 72. SAP VVS NF) had claimed next 6 destroyed Ju 88s. So total Soviet and British units had claimed 8 destoyed Ju 88s plus aditional one Me 109 by British.

The last victories do not fit in such counting like: Griffin (who was the first one writng about this events, during the war), Sheppard and Geust.

There are given in Griffin's book total 12 achived victories before the last battle agains Ju 88 and Me 109. Somewhere one victory is wrong credit or misleading credited?
There are 12 Me 109 destroyed (before 6.10. in Griffin's book) + the last 3 one (2 Ju 88 + 1 Me 109) which giving total 15 not 14 as usualy are written.
Second option: Griffin had made wrong couting (one Me 109 too much)?

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Fascinating!
I don't recall any Soviet fighters on that day. Maybe I was looking the other way??

And although ours was 'confirmed', I'm not happy with that.

That's me setting out.

= Tim

PS - just checked with a friend on the other squadron & he can't recall them either.....??

PPS - just been thinking - I cannot understand how ANY of that raid made it home. For my part, it was because I was a poor shot - couldn't hit a Pheasant!!

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Mirek

Claims and loses. There were 14 Ju88's on 6th Oct 1941. Two definate loses. Lots of duplicate claims to probables and damaged. Another crash/written off on landing at Petsamo.

regards

Mark

Kills to 151 Wing in Russia.
81 Squadron.
12th Sept
Z5122 P/O 'Bas' Bush. Bf110 Damaged.
12th Sept
Z4018 Sgt 'Wag' Haw Bf109E Destroyed.
Z5157 P/O 'Jimmy' Walker . Bf109E Destroyed.
Z4006 Sgt 'Ibby' Waud. Bf109E Destroyed.*
Z4006 Sgt 'Ibby' Waud. He126 Probable*

17th Sept
Z5208 Sgt 'Wag' Haw. Bf109E Destroyed.
Z4017 P/O ‘Bas’ Bush Bf109E Destroyed*
Z5207 Sgt 'Avro’ Anson 1/3
Z5228 Sgt 'Gin Bottle' Sims. 1/3 Bf109E Destroyed.*
BD792 S/Ldr 'Tony' Rook. 1/3

26th Sept
Z5227 P/O 'Scottie' Edmiston. Bf109F Probable
BD818 P/O ‘Artie’ Holmes Bf109F? Destroyed
Z4006 Sgt 'Butch' Reed Bf109F? Destroyed.

27th Sept
Z5227 P/O 'Scottie' Edmiston. Bf109F? Destroyed.
Z4018 Sgt 'Wag' Haw. Bf109F? Destroyed.

6th October.
Z5207 F/Lt 'Micky' Rook. Bf109F Destroyed.
BD792 S/Ldr A H Rook/Furneaque Ju88 Destroyed*
BD792 S/Ldr Rook/P/O Ramsay Ju88 Probable
Z5157 P/O D Ramsay/134 a/c Ju88 Probable
Z5228 F/O 'Mac' McGregor Ju88 Probable
Z5209 P/O 'Jimmy' Walker Ju88 Probable
BD822 Sgt 'Bish' Bishop Ju88 Damaged.
Z4006 Sgt 'Freddie' Crewe Ju88 Damaged

134 Squadron.
6th October
Z3978 P/O Cameron Ju88 Probable
Z3978 P/O Cameron Ju88 Damaged
Z5134 Sgt Gould Ju88 Damaged
Z5236 F/O Elkington /Barnes Ju88 Destroyed *


* Confirmed in Luftwaffe loses.
_ Confirmed as hitting the ground by independent RAF pilots, not Russians


Three Bf109E’s and one Hs126 were claimed as shot down.
German Luftwaffe records indicate the following:
(1) 3/JG77 Bf109E7 W.Nr1075 Yellow 10 by Liza-Bucht, Luftkampf, 100% Ltn Eckerdt v. d. Lühe gefallen.
(2) I/JG77 Bf109E7 W.Nr4078 by Nicht Gemeldet,. Notlandung infolge Motorstorung. 100%.
(3) 1/(H)32 Hs126 W.Nr3461 by location Lizabucht. Reason Jagerbeschuss Air Combat 30%.

Three Bf109E’s were claimed as shot down.
German Luftwaffe records indicate the following:
(1) 2/JG77 Bf109E3 W.Nr4004 Red 4 by Zapad Liza. Jagerbeschuss 100%. Fw Joseph Siglmair Vermißt. (Actually 14./JG77)
(2) 4/JG77 Bf109E7 W.Nr6124 by Bereslawi, Jagerbeschuss-20% damage. (Thought to be 14./JG77)

Two Bf109F’s? (E7;s?) were claimed as shot down and one probable.
No German Luftwaffe records indicate any damage to Bf109’s on this day.

Two Bf109F’s (E7;s?) were claimed as shot down.
No German Luftwaffe records indicate any damage to Bf109’s on this day.

One Bf109E’s were claimed as shot down. (A flight of six of I/JG77 were esorting fourteen Ju88’s)
(German Luftwaffe records for the 6th October indicate the following -
(1) I/KG30 Ju88A5, W.Nr626, 4D+LL. Location Unbekannt-unknown, Unbekannt-unknown, 100%. Crew missing.
(2) I/KG30 Ju88A5, W.Nr4155 4D+KL. Location Unbekannt-unknown, Unbekannt-unknown, 100%. Crew missing.
(3) I/KG30 Ju88 A5, W.Nr292 4D+?L. Location Fl. Pl Petsamo-. Brauchlanung nach Jagerbeschuss, 100%..

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Mirek

A Bf110 was also given credit to 81 Sqn even though they had no cmbat or claims with a Bf1110 on that day. Cannot recall the day.

This might be the other one!

regards

Mark

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Hi
Thanks for the list Mark, reading some materials about amount of Wing's succes I have met different figures.
The first is in Griffin's book, when he had wrote about 12 certian victories/destroyed enemy planes before 6.10.41 (which was paid by Russian 1000 rubles/ per destroyed planes, all 12 000 rubles).
Next ones were these 3 from 6.10., which total gives 12 plus 2 Ju 88 plus 1 Me 109 = 15 certian planes.

Second, when you read: The Royal Air Force 1939-1945. Vol. II, by D. Richards & H. St. G. Saunders, both written about: “No further casualties were suffered in later combats, and at the end of its five weeks' spell of operations the Wing was able to claim, for the loss of this single machine, sixteen enemy aircraft destroyed, four probably destroyed, and seven damaged”.
Sometimes I have met 15 certian victories as caunted in Griffin's book.

I think, that I have just found this two "missing" in Griffin:-)

Griffin (p. 50) had given for 17.09. four certain victories, in your list are 3.
Next is on 26.09. (p. 61): he is giving 3 confirmed as a certian and in your list are 2 certain, 1 next probably.

So he could probably had done a mistake (overcredited on 2 victories or you have undercredited for 2 victories)?

So when we reduce this 2 we will get 10 certian plus 3 next from 6.10. total will be: 13 certain destroyed planes plus 7 probables and 5 damaged, or 15 certian, 5 probables plus 5 damaged.

And on 6.10.41 pararell to Wings claims next 5-6 Ju 88s were credited for Soviet 72. SAP VVS NF.

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Off at a tangent again, Mark, but I would like to use this thread to even scores. I would like to suggest that we have not always been the only 'overclaimers' - see 26/7 September.

Is it appropriate to quote Bergstrom's quote by Hugo Dahmer re 26 September, wherein he & his chums laid into 6 of us - "don't know how many got shot down....some may have escaped....but all were hit"? All our records (via those on the ground) show that not one of our aircraft was damaged.

Yes - in all theatres there have been overclaims, for one reason or t'other, but fair's fair?

= Tim

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Tim/Mirek,

Even Müller claims a Hurricane on the 27th Sept - 151 Wing lost none.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mullerr.html

17th Sept 1941 - one Bf110 credited to 81 Sqn by Soviet Observation Corp. (no Hurricane pilot claimed/had a combat with a Bf110 this day).

6th October - records say 2 Ju88, 1Bf109F (E with pointed spinner), 3 probable and 4 damaged.

As for Griffin's book - he was the Adjutant. I have all of his diary notes and rough typed reports (from his daughter).

regards

Mark

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

About Bergstrom's books (both about Barbarossa, from 2000 and next from 2007) I can say as about 10 years or so about his 1-st book, there are plenty of error and many mitology, and a few facts. Bergstrom writes fast, messy, shallow and with plenty of mistakes! The same he has done in second "improved" edition.

1. The same is with Dahmer's claims in his book. One big error.
In fact he Dahmer did it, but not on 26.09.41, but on 16.11.41. German shot down all zvieno of 3 Soviet Hurricanes (3 pilots KIA) from 3./78. IAP VVS NF. Dahmer writes about shot down of 6 Hurricanes in autumn of 1941 (not specifie exacte data as 26.09.), which he and his unit total destroyed. In fact Germans destroyed only 3 Hurricanes in this battle and they did it as he wrote: from near distans, from the tails of Hurricanes, pilot were total unexpected. One of KIA was an ace P. Siemienko, who had already 7 victories. Next two KIA were: Bulytsev, Kabatski. There were unaware of their deaths.
So, Dahmer was right but had made 100% overclaiming, as with memories sometimes happend, but it had in fact happend.

2. Yes there were no Me 109 F-4 on this area in 1941. This type had coem to the North next year spring-sammer, when all units had got this verson.
During 1941, there were only Me 109 E-1, E-3, E-7 and some version T.

3. So, it looks like Griffin had done a first mistake, which later were repeated many times for the next.

4. There are for Soviet side (about 6.10.) such information: 2 Ju 88 shot down by Soviet fighters and next one by A/A battery, all 3 Ju 88. Next Soiet source mentioned about 5 Ju 88 shot down. Maybe this 5 victories including 2 British one?
14 Ju 88s had attacked 2 soviet airfields: Vayenga-1 and Vajenga-2.

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Tut tut, Mark. Mirek's No 3. Griffin? Repeated in your 25/4. So what's an 88 here & there!!

Adjutant, yes, but with sound military experience. Not to be dismissed too lightly.

Interesting about Dahmer's report, Mirek - I followed Bergstrom's line & assumed that it was 'us' that he attacked,

= Tim

PS - Murphy again, Mark - reached for Griffith's book - always on hand - but today, out of 70 or 80 books, it was the only one missing!!

PPS - Just got this in the mail -

"As I had hoped and forecast, the latest issue of 'Flypast' (cover date June 2011 but on sale today) has a 32-page special on Operation Barbarossa - the German invasion of Russia in 1941. 12 of the 32 pages are the story and the images of the Wing in action!"

Shame they don't mention the showing of the new film about the Wing at the IWM on 9 May - the date of the annual commemmoration at the Russian War Memorial.

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Hi Tim/Mirek,

Griffith wrote a nice little book. He based it on the squadron records. Published during WWII. He also wrote other books on Russia and was a veteran of WWI.

Of course he did not have the Luftwaffe quartermaster's returns.

I hasten to add, some of the probables were 'confirmed' later by the Soviet Observation Corp so this was why the numbers exceeded mine.

I'll have to scan the original escorts and claims list. Lists them all.

Griffin - I think Mirek meant Griffith's.

As for the 26/27th September - these Bf109's were not seen to hit the ground. They did go vertical down at high speed into cloud but no evidence they were lost. Probably returned with damage though if 10% or under of no injury, they were not recorded.

The Luftwaffe seem to not always list every loss. It was used as a list to obtain replacements - not listing loses for loss sake. It seems some units hid there loses if they thought they were high.

There is at least one Bf109 E on the 12th that was 100% lost but could not be found on the Luftwaffe returns.

On a side note - a Bf110 F was lost in 1942 and written off (usually 100%) but was only listed as 10%. Could have been a typo.

regards

Mark

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

All good for the brain?

See the PPS in my last.

= Tim

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Tim, no way, he had used his memories, fixed it to the history of 151. Wing, which is wrong of course (his book from 2007, p. 79-80). He is writing about bouncing on 17.09.41 by "3 Me 109 F".
But Dahmer written about attack done by 6 Me 109 Ts against 6 Hurricanes (which is incorrect, there were 3 in fact), which were all shot down - second fact. He had wrong matched this two stories in one making now such problems.
Read carefuly both pages, it is evident Bergstrom's huge mistake!


Yes, I think about Griffith's books (my error), which is nice, I have it too, good written. It is interesting, that his book was printed in 1941 (if I am right) very fast indeed, he could returned to UK on November/December 1941. He had to send whole material a little bit earlier?

Yes, in his book there are 12 certain victories, which were paid by Russian. So, Soviet had to confirmed these 2 probables as certain victories (so this Me 110 from 15.09, which was not counted by RAF but counted by Soviet should be included?).
It was important due to money reward. In his book it is 12000 rubles (1000 rubles for one certain victory).


There were not so many planes, so it was difficoult to do this. Rather commander had written deliberatly wrong loss qualification not combat loss but engine problems, which also could happend. Units had rather old planes, used. This way he gave higher commander information about faster replacment by new ones.

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Tim

Hope to do a writie up in the next couple of months on 151 Wing (last one was 14 years ago - shockingly) and also a bit on the three recovered airframes - Z5207 (being restored in Hampshire), Z5227 (stored in USA) and Z5252 (stored in Moscow). Two Ex- 81 Sqn (sorry - no 134 Sqn) and a 'spare'.

The Hs126 was changed to confirmed.

The RAF/pilots could not accept the 12000 rubles so it was donated to the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund.

regards

Mark

PS The book 'RAF in Russia' was finished in March 42. On the dust jacket - Just a few things stated - He was Artillery Observation Officer in WWI. Served 3 years in Bomber, Fighter and Coastal Command (1939-41). Also BEF Expedition to France before Russia. Lived in Russia between 1932-35. Wrote two other books. Seeing Soviet Russia and Playtime in Russia. (Also have This is Russia - published October 43). Written novels, travel books. Contributor of the Observer, Manchester Guardian and was dramatic critic of the Evening Standard for a number of years!

RAF in Russia - as of 1943 - 14,000 copies sold and being reprinted!

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Biography - yes, my point - so not a careless recorder?

= Tim

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Yes of course, "it would spoil their amateur status!".

So, with certain victories is much more clear, then before. When Russian had upgarded as a confirmed this Hs 126 and Me 110 (which was not in fact even shot, but it had no matter in IX 1941) we will get "15" but in fact 13 confirmed victories of 151. Wing.

With Griffith now is clear about his book, he was proffesional writer, and he did good his job, he was also one of two British Russian interpretator.

One thing is also strange? Average one squadron had about 30 or so pilots and about 100-150 ground personel (if right remeber).
The amount of Wing's pilots was about 50 and the ground personel was about 550. It means, that there were much more ground specialist for 2 squadrons services, then normal needs. Probably there were radar, radio servisants. Such equipment, If I am right was also send in first convoy.

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Mirek

151 Wing consisted of 550 personal - about 74 officers and pilots (of which I located 71 survivors or their families). Probably seen about 50% of the log books.

The Wing consisted of a lot more trades as you rightly mentioned. Two doctors or which I have the diary of one which is very interesting. Radio, stores, translators. I'll have to look at the list later.

Advance party flew up from Keg Ostrov and the rest went by train - 3 days I think from Archangel.

Should still do a book - day by diary from July 41 until Dec 41.

regards

Mark

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

I have written about this "50+550", due to Griffith book, where he had written: " ... a Wing of 550 airmen, and fifty or so pilots,", (p. 88).
He used "and" but not "including, with" etc. So I think, that amount of 600 could be "also good". Of course many times I have met this lower figure 550, but it is still to much a for standard 2 fighter squadrons.

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

I have note of 19 134 Sqn pilots - is that incorrect?

= Tim

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Tim

Yep, 19 pilots with each squadron and adjutant/Intelligence officer with each. The Wing consisted of 21 officers - Engineering, equipment, intelligence, medical as well as other support officers at Archangel on on board HMS Argus.

This is why the 39 Hurricanes was interesting - one pilot had to fly two aircraft over from Keg Ostrov.

The only pilots/families I could not find were 'Binnie' Barnes and 'Griff' Griffiths of 134 Sqn and 81 Sqn intelligence officer - Kennedy (from the West Indies).

regards

Mark

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Mark, something wrong (?). Are you sure about HMS Argus, there were 24 HC, which took off.
The whole stuff plus 16 next HCs were loaded on the borad SS Llanstephen Castle (11 000 BRT) with this over 500-550 RAF soldiers.

During uploading one HC was missing (maybe was earlier damaged), then we have 39 servicable HCs.

Keg Ostrow was English name, Kadnikov Russian one.

HMS Argus, maybe I am wrong, did not sailed to Archangel? He had low amount of fuel and 7.09.41 was the last day to despached carried Hurricanes, if not they had to returned.
If Argus had sailed to Archagel, he could despached HCs a few day later too, it would no matter in this situation.

BTW
Do you have all HCs numbers?

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Mirek

24 Hurricanes and 24 pilots (12 from 81 Sqn and 12 from 134 Sqn) took off from HMS Argus and flew to Veanga.

The other 16? Hurricanes were delivered by the first convoy - Operation Dervish - SSLlanstephen Castle was the flagship and 5 other merchantmen.

Not only were 15 Hurricanes assembled (the equipment officer F/Lt Gittins) was also given a Soviet Award. Cannot recall the name - Order of Kuznetsov?

Besides the Hurricanes, P40C/Tomahawk IIB's were assembled by an RAf team at Keg Ostrov and test flown by Lt Zemke and Lt Allison. (Zemke was Hub Zemke - later leader of 56FG Zemke's wolfpack).

HMS Argus did not sail to Archangel but the convoy did. It had other supplies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish_Convoy

regards

Mark

PS - Yes, I have all 39 Hurricanes and 95% of the RAF serials /Soviet numbers. Only three I believe were not given Soviet numbers.

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Yes, there were supplied next 48 P-40C/Tomahawks, but according Russian they were not assembled in the same place (Keg-Ostrov) but in other one - Yagodnik.

Check you private mail box on this forum.

Regards,
mirekw

Re: Claims of 151. Wing on 6.10.41: 2 or 3 Ju 88?
 

Mirek

Correct - P40's were assembled at Yagodnik.

regards

Mark